I Trouble simplifying the Lagrangian

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on simplifying the Lagrangian for a mechanical system involving variables x, y, and φ. The user presents their calculations for kinetic and potential energy, aiming to match a book's solution while removing time derivatives. They highlight that certain terms can be rewritten as total time derivatives, which can be omitted without affecting the equations of motion. The final simplified Lagrangian is presented, demonstrating a clearer form for analysis. The user expresses gratitude for the assistance received in this process.
p1ndol
Messages
7
Reaction score
3
Hello, I have posted a similar thread on this question before, but I'd like to get some help to simplify the answers I've got so far in order to match the solutions provided. If anyone could help me, I would really appreciate it. Since (c) is quite similar to (b), I'll leave here what I've done on (b).

Taking x and y as provided in the solution, I imagine we should have:

\dot x = -a\gamma\sin(\gamma t) + l\dot \phi \cos(\phi) \dot y = -l\dot \phi\sin(\phi)

Calculating the kinetic energy:

T = \frac {m} {2} (l^2\dot\phi^2\cos(\phi)^2 - 2l\dot\phi\cos(\phi)a\gamma\sin(\gamma t) + a^2\gamma^2\sin(\gamma t)^2+l^2\dot \phi^2\sin(\phi)^2)
T = \frac {m} {2} (l^2\dot\phi^2 - 2l\dot\phi\cos(\phi)a\gamma\sin(\gamma t) + a^2\gamma^2\sin(\gamma t)^2

For the potential energy:

V = -mgy = -mgl\cos(\phi)

So, considering that the Lagrangian is the kinetic minus the potential energy, I am trying to find out a way to get to the answer provided in the book removing time derivatives.
 

Attachments

  • Captura de Tela (66).png
    Captura de Tela (66).png
    28.5 KB · Views: 136
Physics news on Phys.org
As you wrote, the Lagrangian for (b) is\begin{align*}
L = \frac{1}{2}ml^2 \dot{\phi}^2 - ma\gamma l \dot{\phi} \sin{(\gamma t)} \cos{(\phi)} + \frac{1}{2}ma^2 \gamma^2 \sin^2{(\gamma t)} + mgl\cos{(\phi)}
\end{align*}Next, notice that the second term can be re-written as\begin{align*}
-ma\gamma l \dot{\phi} \sin{(\gamma t)} \cos{(\phi)} = ma\gamma^2 l \cos{(\gamma t)} \sin{(\phi)} - \frac{d}{dt} \left( ma\gamma l \sin{(\gamma t)} \sin{(\phi)}\right)
\end{align*}The total time derivative can be omitted in the Lagrangian without changing the equations of motion. Furthermore, the third term ##\frac{1}{2}ma^2 \gamma^2 \sin^2{(\gamma t)}## in the Lagrangian depends only on time, so may also be omitted (i.e. it can be re-written as a total derivative). Therefore\begin{align*}
\tilde{L} = \frac{1}{2}ml^2 \dot{\phi}^2 + ma\gamma^2 l \cos{(\gamma t)} \sin{(\phi)} + mgl\cos{(\phi)}
\end{align*}is a Lagrangian for the system.
 
  • Like
Likes p1ndol and vanhees71
Thanks, it helped a lot!
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top