3
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

Consider the system above ($m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$ are connected by springs of stiffnesses $k_1$ and $k_2$, respectively. Also, $m_1 \neq m_2 \neq m_3$). The Lagrangian is

$$L(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},\dot x_{1},\dot x_{2},\dot x_{3},t) = \frac{1}{2}m_{1}(\dot x_{1})^2+\frac{1}{2}m_{2}(\dot x_{2})^2+\frac{1}{2}m_{3}(\dot x_{3})^2 - \frac{1}{2}k(x_{2}-x_{1})^2-\frac{1}{2}k(x_{3}-x_{2})^2 $$

However, I am required to change variables, in order to avoid crossed terms. I've solved the two masses problem previously, having obtained $q_{1}(x_{1},x_{2}) = x_{2}-x_{1}$ and $q_{2}(x_{1},x_{2}) = m_{1}x_{1}+m_{2}x_{2}$, which did the job. Hence, I tried to apply the same logic to this problem ($q_{1}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}) = x_{2}-x_{1}$, $q_{2} (x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}) = x_{3}-x_{2}$ and $q_{3}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}) = m_{1}x_{1}+m_{2}x_{2}+m_{3}x_{3}$), which did not eliminate the crossed terms completely. My question is, is there any kind of logic/physical meaning to these changes of variables or is this a 'trial and error' kind of process?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ “ I am required change variables, in order to avoid crossed terms” why you need it? $\endgroup$
    – Eli
    Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 11:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is part of the exercise $\endgroup$
    – miniplanck
    Commented Mar 6, 2019 at 12:14
  • $\begingroup$ if you avoid crossed terms in $\quad x_1\,,x_2\,,x_3\quad $ you get the cross terms in the $\quad \dot{x}_1\,,\dot{x}_2\,,\dot{x}_2$ so i don't see the benefit?. anyway you have a linear differential equations, so you get a analytical solution $\endgroup$
    – Eli
    Commented Mar 6, 2019 at 12:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I completely agree with you... From the original Lagrangian, the equations of motion can easily be deduced. However, that's not the aim of the exercise $\endgroup$
    – miniplanck
    Commented Mar 6, 2019 at 16:27

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

You should make a change of variables to the center of mass reference frame. The center of mass as you should know has coordinates $$R=\frac{m_1r_1+m_2r_2+m_3r_3}{m_1+m_2+m_3} $$. Then you should define a new position for every particle from the center of mass. This way you should get a nice lagrangian with no crossed terms.

Studying a system from the center of mass perspective is useful when dealing with many bodies, it is not an arbitrary choice.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If, say, q1 = x1-R and q2 = x2-R (positions of the masses relative to the CM), then x2-x1 = q2-q1, which, squared, would still result in crossed terms. What am I missing? $\endgroup$
    – miniplanck
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 at 23:26
0
$\begingroup$

A general quadratic form in $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ can be written as

$$L(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = \sum_{i\le j\le n}a_{ij}x_ix_j = \sum_{i,j=1}^n A_{ij}x_ix_j$$

where $A_{ij} = A_{ji}$, so that $A_{ij} = a_{ij} / 2$ if $i < j$. Then $A_{ij}$ forms a symmetric matrix, so it can be diagonalized by an orthogonal transformation. This change of basis is a linear change of variables in which cross-terms are eliminated.

In your example the terms involving $\dot x_i$ are already free of cross-terms, so we can disregard them. The remaining part, written out, is

$$-\frac12k\left(x_1^2 - 2x_1x_2 + 2x_2^2 - 2x_2x_3 + x_3^2\right) = -\frac12k\begin{pmatrix}x_1 & x_2 & x_3\end{pmatrix}A\begin{pmatrix}x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x_3\end{pmatrix}$$

where

$$A = \begin{pmatrix}\phantom{-}1 & -1 & \phantom{-}0 \\ -1 & \phantom{-}2 & -1 \\ \phantom{-}0 & -1 & \phantom{-}1\end{pmatrix}$$

Normalized orthogonal eigenvectors are

$$\frac1{\sqrt3}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix},\frac1{\sqrt2}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0 \\ -1\end{pmatrix},\frac1{\sqrt6}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -2 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}$$

with eigenvalues $0$, $1$, $3$, so for

$$y_1 = \frac{x_1 + x_2 + x_3}{\sqrt3}, y_2 = \frac{x_1 - x_3}{\sqrt2}, y_3 = \frac{x_1 - 2x_2 + x_3}{\sqrt6},$$

we get

$$x_1^2 - 2x_1x_2 + 2x_2^2 - 2x_2x_3 + x_3^2 = y_2^2 + 3y_3^2 = \frac12(x_1 - x_3)^2 + \frac12(x_1 - 2x_2 + x_3)^2.$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I think that you have to transform also the velocity coordinates with the same transformation matrix (eigen vector matrix) $\endgroup$
    – Eli
    Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Eli Yes, you're right. This only diagonalizes the Lagrangian in the mathematical sense (as a function), we cannot obtain the equations of motion as its Euler-Lagrange equation. $\endgroup$
    – doetoe
    Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 13:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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