-2

I've defined the origin as the center of rotation for the particle on the pendulum. Then: $$ x = r\cos{\theta} $$ $$ y = r\sin{\theta} $$ $$z = 0$$ From here, the potential energy is $V = 0$ since $z = 0$, and the kinetic energy is $K = \frac{1}{2}m(r\dot{\theta})^2 = L$.

Putting this into $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta}}) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial\theta}$ yields $mr^2\ddot{\theta} = 0$ which would assume that there is no acceleration, which is false. What mistake am I making?

adelaide
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2
    Does this help? https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/320689/249986 One thing that stands out with your approach is that you've completely lost that there's actually a pendulum involved. Your system is indistinguishable from a particle moving in the plane. – Cameron Williams Mar 24 '24 at 16:09
  • Perhaps the key issue is that, while conical pendula do move along a circle with constant angular velocity, your coordinates are perhaps not the canonical quantities of the problem. The pendulum length and angle the pendulum itself makes are more natural. – Cameron Williams Mar 24 '24 at 16:18
  • Using the pendulum length and the angle, one could express the radius of the motion. Does the approach here make a difference, or is it just the end result that's important? – adelaide Mar 24 '24 at 16:20
  • What does "end result" mean to you? If you're only interested in the final equation of motion for a conical pendulum, then sure, but if you want your equations of motion to reflect more closely what a pendulum with three dimensions of motion should look like, then the other approach is better. After you make simplifying assumptions like $\theta$ is fixed, you'll get the same end result. – Cameron Williams Mar 24 '24 at 16:26
  • You need to include the potential term. If there is no potential term then this system is not a pendulum. You have set $V=0$ seemingly because you are confused about the direction of gravity... – hft Mar 24 '24 at 16:47

1 Answers1

-1

Before setting and solving the problem, let's focus on the two main issues of your model:

  • you're not considering any gravitational field, $\boldsymbol{g}$, that I'll take uniform throughout the whole space and pointing downwards, $\boldsymbol{g} = -g \boldsymbol{\hat{z}}$;
  • you're not using any coordinate to describe the rotation around the vertical axis.

enter image description here

Solving these issues, the Cartesian coordinates of the position and the velocity of the mass become

$$\begin{cases} x = L \sin \theta \cos \phi \\ y = L \sin \theta \sin \phi \\ z = - L \cos \theta \end{cases} \qquad \ , \qquad \begin{cases} v_x = L \left( \dot{\theta} \cos \theta \cos \phi - \dot{\phi} \sin \theta \sin \phi \right) \\ v_y = L \left( \dot{\theta} \cos \theta \sin \phi + \dot{\phi} \sin \theta \cos \phi \right) \\ v_z = L \dot{\theta} \sin \theta \end{cases} $$ while the kinetic energy becomes $$ K = \frac{1}{2} m |\boldsymbol{v}|^2 = \frac{1}{2} m L^2\left( \dot{\theta}^2 + \dot{\phi}^2 \sin^2 \theta \right)$$ the potential $$ U = - m g z = m g L \cos \theta \ .$$

Lagrange equations $$\frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \dot{q}} \right) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial q} = 0$$ read

$$\begin{aligned} 0 & = \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \dot{\theta}} \right) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \theta} = m L^2 \ddot{\theta} - m L^2 \dot{\phi}^2 \cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} + m g L \sin{\theta} \\ 0 & = \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}} \right) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \phi} = m L^2 \sin^2 \theta \ddot{\phi} + 2 m L^2 \sin \theta \cos \theta \dot{\phi} \dot{\theta} \ . \end{aligned}$$

From the point of view of the balance equations of momentum or angular momentum, the former equation is the dynamical equation of the component of the angular momentum orthogonal to the plane identified by angle $\phi$, while the latter equation is the conservation of the z-component of the angular momentum.

enter image description here

basics
  • 8,365
  • Thank you for the awesome visualization! – adelaide Mar 24 '24 at 18:19
  • I won't say anything, since you've already suspended my account for one week. I'd like to stress that this is an anonymous and unmotivated downvote, as it has already happened many times. I'd like to tell that this behaviour is dangerous for the site, if you like that to be something more than a "few friend club" – basics Mar 24 '24 at 20:51
  • I'm the one who downvoted. Your answer misses an important if not essential point of Lagrangian mechanics: it is based on scalar quantities. Thus, the expression of $\vec v$ in some complicated coordinate system is entirely unwarranted since you can immediately start with cylindrical coordinates and obtain the same results without all the shananighans of unit vectors changing directions in time. – ZeroTheHero Mar 24 '24 at 21:04
  • This wasn't marked as a homework question, when I provided an answer. For the comment about the choice of coordinates, you should know better than anyone else that the solution is independent on the coordinates, and Cartesian coordinates is one of the less tricky choices when you talk to a not-so-expert user, especially when you have to calculate derivatives. So, imho, this the usual poor downvote of a gang – basics Mar 24 '24 at 21:16
  • With due respect: this was an obvious homework question. With due respect: you're missing my point. The issue is not the coordinate system, it is your use of vectors in an analysis which, at its foundation, seeks to remove vectors and instead uses a single scalar function instead of 6 components of 2 vector equations. I'm but one opinion, so other can upvote your answer if they feel it is warranted. – ZeroTheHero Mar 24 '24 at 21:19
  • Admittedly I also fail to understand your rant: all your answers except this one have non-negative votes so presumably I would be an outlier. – ZeroTheHero Mar 24 '24 at 21:21
  • btw, maybe I should take your opinion as your poor use/accusation of shananinghans about time derivation. Anyway, you've spent 1 credit, it costed me 2. Who asked the question appreciated the answer, you didn't, I got your comment. It's enough to me – basics Mar 24 '24 at 21:22
  • I guess you are. – basics Mar 24 '24 at 21:23
  • I should correct a previous statement: you do have a number of answers with negative scores of -1 or -2 (none due to me AFAIK). – ZeroTheHero Mar 24 '24 at 21:23