1
$\begingroup$

I am considering the lagrangian $$L(\theta_1,\theta_2,\dot{\theta_1^2},\dot{\theta_2^2})=\frac{1}{2}(m_ar_1^2\dot{\theta_1^2}+m_br_2^2\dot{\theta_2^2})+kr_1r_2\cos(\theta_1-\theta_2)$$ It can be noted that the lagrangian is invariant for rotations of both points of the same angle $$\varphi_{\epsilon}(\theta_1,\theta_2) \longrightarrow(\theta_1+\epsilon,\theta_2+\epsilon)$$ According to Noether's theorem: $$J=\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta_1}}+\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta_2}}=m_ar_1^2\dot{\theta_1}+m_b r_2^2\dot{\theta_2}$$ Consider a linear transformation of coordinates \begin{align*} \theta_1&=b\phi_1+a_{12}\phi_2 \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, b,a_{12},a_{22} \, \in \mathbb{R}\\ \theta_2&=b\phi_1+a_{22}\phi_2 \end{align*} So new Lagrangian $$L(\phi_2,\dot{\phi_1^2},\dot{\phi_2^2})=\frac{m_ar_1^2}{2} \left( b^2\dot{\phi_1}+2ba_{12}\dot{\phi_1}\dot{\phi_2}+a^2_{12}\dot{\phi_2^2}\right) +\frac{m_br_2^2}{2} \left( b^2\dot{\phi_1^2}+2ba_{22}\dot{\phi_1}\dot{\phi_2}+a^2_{22}\dot{\phi_2^2}\right)+kr_1r_2\cos(\phi_2(a_{12}-a_{22}))$$
$\phi_1$ is a cyclic coordinate so the respective conjugated momentum is conserved \begin{align*}p_{\phi_1}=\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\phi_1^2} } &= m_ar_1^2b^2\dot{\phi_{1}}+m_aba_{12}r_1^2\dot{\phi_{2}}+m_br_2^2b\dot{\phi_{1}}+m_bba_{22}r^2_2\dot{\phi_{2}}= \\ &= b^2(m_ar^2_1+m_br_2^2)\dot{\phi_1}+b(m_aa_{12}r_1^2+m_ba_{22}r^2_2)\end{align*} Considering the result found above with Noether's theorem and replacing the transformation $$J=\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta_1}}+\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta_2}}=m_ar_1^2\dot{\theta_1+m_br_2^2\dot{\theta_2}}$$

$$J_1=b(m_ar_1^2+m_br^2_2)\dot{\phi_1}+(m_ar_1^2a_{12}+m_br^2_2a_{22})\dot{\phi_2}$$ I find that the two results for the conserved quantity do not coincide. Why? $$J_1 \neq p_{\phi_1}$$ Are they two different motion constants? Did I make any mistakes doing the math? Should the two paths, theoretically speaking, lead to the same result?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your linear transformation of coordinates doesn't seem invertible. Specifically, $\phi_2$ is missing in the transformation. $\endgroup$ – edm Dec 6 '17 at 12:26
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry there was a mistake, I hope I have not committed others in transcribing $\endgroup$ – Stefano Barone Dec 6 '17 at 12:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You calculated $\dot\theta_1^2= b^2\dot{\phi_1^2}+2ba_{12}\dot{\phi_1^2}\dot{\phi_2^2}+a^2_{12}\dot{\phi_2^2}$, and $\dot\theta_2^2= b^2\dot{\phi_2^2}+2ba_{22}\dot{\phi_1^2}\dot{\phi_2^2}+a^2_{22}\dot{\phi_2^2}$, which are wrong. $\endgroup$ – edm Dec 6 '17 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I'm a very distracted person and I made several mistakes in transcribing now I hope to have them corrected, the two results are not the same but almost, maybe there is still some error in the calculations. $\endgroup$ – Stefano Barone Dec 6 '17 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ I would also like to know whether the two results should be the same from a theoretical point of view or not $\endgroup$ – Stefano Barone Dec 6 '17 at 13:41
2
$\begingroup$

You state that \begin{align*} \theta_1&=b\phi_1+a_{12}\phi_2 \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, b,a_{12},a_{22} \, \in \mathbb{R}\\ \theta_2&=b\phi_1+a_{22}\phi_2 \end{align*} now, \begin{align*} \dot{\theta}_1&=b\dot{\phi}_1+a_{12}\dot{\phi}_2\\ \dot{\theta}_2&=b\dot{\phi}_1+a_{22}\dot{\phi}_2 \end{align*} Now, from the Lagranigian \begin{align} \frac{1}{2}m_a r^2_{1}\dot{\theta}_{1}^2 + \ldots&= \frac{1}{2}m_a r^2_{1}(b\dot{\phi}_1+a_{12}\dot{\phi}_2)^2 +\ldots \\ &=\frac{1}{2}m_a r^2_{1}(b^2 \dot{\phi}_{1}^2+2a_{12}b\dot{\phi}_{1}\dot{\phi}_{2}+a_{12}^2\dot{\phi}_{2}^2)+\ldots \end{align} See how I find that the cross terms $\dot{\phi}_{1}\dot{\phi}_{2}$ is not quadratic? I can't see how you get quadratic cross terms in your transformed Lagrangian? When you perform the partial derivatives with respect to $\dot{\phi}_{1}^2$ now all should be conserved...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you missing a 2 factor in the last formula? $\endgroup$ – Jon Dec 6 '17 at 12:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Jon, Yes Jon, yes I am. I will edit, thank you for noticing,.. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Dec 6 '17 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I'm a very distracted person and I made several mistakes in transcribing now I hope to have them corrected, the two results are not the same but almost, maybe there is still some error in the calculations. $\endgroup$ – Stefano Barone Dec 6 '17 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ I would also like to know whether the two results should be the same from a theoretical point of view or not $\endgroup$ – Stefano Barone Dec 6 '17 at 13:42
1
$\begingroup$

Another than the mistake in the expansion of $\dot\theta_1^2$ and $\dot\theta_2^2$, be careful that Lagrangian uses $\theta_1,\theta_2,\dot\theta_1,\dot\theta_2$ as input variables, not $\theta_1,\theta_2,\dot\theta_1^2,\dot\theta_2^2$. Similarly, the partial derivatives for defining conjugate momentum should be $\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot\theta_1}$, not $\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot\theta_1^2}$.

Fix all these mistakes, do the calculations again and see if there is still discrepancy in the conserved quantity.

As for whether the two conserved quantities should be the same, I would say they should be, because the symmetry $(\theta_1,\theta_2)\mapsto(\theta_1+\epsilon,\theta_2+\epsilon)$ is essentially the same as $(\phi_1,\phi_2)\mapsto(\phi_1+\frac{\epsilon}{b},\phi_2)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much, I'm trying to remove all the transcription mistakes, I would also like to know whether the two results should be the same theoretically speaking or not $\endgroup$ – Stefano Barone Dec 6 '17 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ @StefanoBarone see the new paragraph. $\endgroup$ – edm Dec 6 '17 at 14:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.