I Understanding the Coordinates in the Lagrangian for a Pendulum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the coordinates used in the Lagrangian formulation for a pendulum, specifically referencing a solution from Landau's classical mechanics book. The coordinates for the support point and the mass are derived from the harmonic oscillator model, with the support point defined as ##\mathbf{r}_p = a(\cos{\gamma t}, -\sin{\gamma t})## and the radius vector from the support point to the mass as ##\mathbf{R} = l(\sin{\phi}, \cos{\phi})##. The final coordinates of the mass are a combination of these two vectors, leading to a clearer understanding of the pendulum's motion. The poster expresses gratitude for the clarification received. This exchange highlights the importance of visual aids and mathematical representation in grasping complex mechanics concepts.
p1ndol
Messages
7
Reaction score
3
So I've been studying classical mechanics and have come across a small doubt with the solution provided to the problem in question from Landau's book. My question is: why are the coordinates for the particle given as they are in the solution? I imagine it has something to do with the harmonic oscillator, but I'd like to properly understand. I appreciate any kind of help, and I'm sorry if this post is somehow incorrect, it is my first one regarding questions.
 

Attachments

  • Captura de Tela (66).png
    Captura de Tela (66).png
    28.5 KB · Views: 157
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you look at the figure? For instance in (a), the support point ##p## has coordinates ##\mathbf{r}_p = a(\cos{\gamma t}, -\sin{\gamma t})## and the radius vector from ##p## to ##m## has coordinates ##\mathbf{R} = l(\sin{\phi}, \cos{\phi})## then the coordinates of ##m## are nothing but those of the vector ##\mathbf{r}_p + \mathbf{R}##.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and p1ndol
I understand it now, thanks!
 
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...
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/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top