DOCSLIB.ORG

Exercises in Classical Mechanics 1 Hamiltonian Formalism for The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exercises in Classical Mechanics 1 Hamiltonian Formalism for The Exercises in Classical Mechanics CUNY GC, Prof. D. Garanin No.4 Solution ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1 Hamiltonian formalism for the double pendulum (10 points) Consider a double pendulum that consists of two massless rods of length l1 and l2 with masses m1 and m2 attached to their ends. The ¯rst pendulum is attached to a ¯xed point and can freely swing about it. The second pendulum is attached to the end of the ¯rst one and can freely swing, too. The motion of both pendulums is con¯ned to a plane, so that it can be described in terms of their angles with respect to the vertical, '1 and '2: a) Write down the Lagrange function for this system. b) Introduce generalized momenta p1 and p2 and change to the Hamiltonian description. Find the transformation matrix that yields the velocities' _ 1 and' _ 2 in terms of the momenta p1 and p2: Write down the Hamilton function H('1; p1;'2; p2) using the transformation matrix. c) Obtain the Hamilton equations. Solution: a) Both kinetic and potential energy of the system are the sums of the contributions of the ¯rst and second masses: L = T ¡ U; T = T1 + T2;U = U1 + U2: (1) For the coordinates of the masses 1 and 2 one has x1 = l1 sin '1; y1 = l1 cos '1 (2) and x2 = l1 sin '1 + l2 sin '2; y2 = l1 cos '1 + l2 cos '2; (3) with the y-axis directed downwards. For the potential energies one has U1 = ¡m1gy1 = ¡m1gl1 cos '1;U2 = ¡m2gy2 = ¡m2g (l1 cos '1 + l2 cos '2) : (4) Kinetic energies are given by m T = 1 l2'_ 2 (5) 1 2 1 1 and m ³ ´ m h i T = 2 x_ 2 +y _2 = 2 l2'_ 2 + l2'_ 2 + 2l l cos (' ¡ ' )_' '_ : (6) 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 All together yields m + m m L = 1 2 l2'_ 2 + 2 l2'_ 2 + m l l cos (' ¡ ' )_' '_ 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 + (m1 + m2) gl1 cos '1 + m2gl2 cos '2: (7) b) The generalized momenta are given by @L 2 p1 = = (m1 + m2) l1'_ 1 + m2l1l2 cos ('1 ¡ '2)_'2 @'_ 1 @L 2 p2 = = m2l2'_ 2 + m2l1l2 cos ('1 ¡ '2)_'1: (8) @'_ 2 This can be written in the matrix form as à ! à ! à ! 2 p1 '_ 1 (m1 + m2) l1 m2l1l2 cos ('1 ¡ '2) = K ;K = 2 : (9) p2 '_ 2 m2l1l2 cos ('1 ¡ '2) m2l2 Note that the kinetic energy in Eq. (7) can be written as à ! à ! ³ ´ ³ ´ 1 '_ 1 1 p1 1 T = '_ 1 '_ 2 K = '_ 1 '_ 2 = (_'1p1 +' _ 2p2) (10) 2 '_ 2 2 p2 2 and that KT = K: The inverse transformation reads à ! à ! '_ p 1 = K¡1 1 ; (11) '_ 2 p2 where à ! 2 ¡1 1 m2l2 ¡m2l1l2 cos ('1 ¡ '2) K = 2 2 2 2 ; (12) m2l1l2 [m1 + m2 ¡ m2 cos ('1 ¡ '2)] ¡m2l1l2 cos ('1 ¡ '2)(m1 + m2) l1 ¡ ¢ again K¡1 T = K¡1: Using the transposed relation ³ ´ ³ ´ ³ ´T ³ ´ ¡1 ¡1 '_ 1 '_ 2 = p1 p2 K = p1 p2 K ; (13) one can write the kinetic energy, Eq. (10), in the form à ! ³ ´ 1 ¡1 p1 T = p1 p2 K : (14) 2 p2 Now the Hamilton function becomes, à ! ³ ´ 1 ¡1 p1 H = T + U = p1 p2 K ¡ (m1 + m2) gl1 cos '1 ¡ m2gl2 cos '2: (15) 2 p2 In the standard form this reads 2 2 2 2 m2l2p1 + (m1 + m2) l1p2 ¡ 2m2l1l2 cos ('1 ¡ '2) p1p2 H = 2 2 2 ¡ (m1 + m2) gl1 cos '1 ¡ m2gl2 cos '2: (16) 2m2l1l2 [m1 + m2 ¡ m2 cos ('1 ¡ '2)] c) The Hamilton equations read @H @H '_ 1 = ; p_1 = ¡ @p1 @'1 @H @H '_ 2 = ; p_2 = ¡ : (17) @p2 @'2 The task to work out these equations is left to the reader. The equations forp _1 andp _2 are pretty cumbersome since one has to di®erentiate the denominator. It is best to do with a mathematical software. The whole system of Hamiltonian equations for the double pendulum is much more cumbersome than the system of Lagrange equations. The only purpose to consider the Hamilton equations here is to show that the Hamiltonian formalism is not well suited for engineering-type problems with constraints. 2 Canonical transformations (10 points) a) The canonical transformations between two sets of variables are p p p Q = ln (1 + q cos p) ;P = 2 (1 + q cos p) q sin p: (18) Show directly that this transformation is canonical. Show that ³ ´2 Q FpQ(p; Q) = ¡ e ¡ 1 tan p is the generating function of this transformation. b) For what values of ® and ¯ do the equations Q = q® cos (¯p) ;P = q® sin (¯p) represent a canonical transformation? What is the form of the generating function FpQ(p; Q) in this case? Solution: a) To check whether a transformation is canonical, one can show that the fundamental Poisson brackets are invariant: fQ; P gq;p = fQ; P gQ;P = 1: (19) Explicit calculation is below: @Q @P @Q @P fQ; P g = ¡ q;p @q @p @p @q 1 1 p p p p = p p cos p £ 2 [¡ q sin p q sin p + (1 + q cos p) q cos p] 1 + q cos p 2 q " # 1 p 1 + p q sin p £ p sin p + 2 cos p sin p 1 + q cos p q 1 h p p p i = p ¡ q cos p sin2 p + cos2 p + q cos3 p + sin2 p + 2 q cos p sin2 p 1 + q cos p 1 h p p i = p 1 + q cos p sin2 p + q cos3 p 1 + q cos p 1 h p ³ ´i = p 1 + q cos p sin2 p + cos2 p = 1: (20) 1 + q cos p Now check that ³ ´2 Q FpQ(p; Q) = ¡ e ¡ 1 tan p is the generating function of this transformation. that is, one has to check the relations @F @F q = ¡ pQ ;P = ¡ pQ : (21) @p @Q One obtains @F ³ ´2 1 ¡ pQ = eQ ¡ 1 : (22) @p cos2 p On the other hand, from Eq. (18) follows p eQ ¡ 1 = q cos p; (23) so that indeed @F ¡ pQ = q: (24) @p Further with the help of Eq. (23) one obtains @F ³ ´ p p ¡ pQ = 2 eQ ¡ 1 eQ tan p = (2 q cos p) (1 + 2 q cos p) tan p @Q p p = 2 (1 + 2 q cos p) q sin p = P; (25) as it should be. b) Let us calculate the Poisson brackets @Q @P @Q @P fQ; P g = ¡ q;p @q @p @p @q = ®q®¡1 cos (¯p) £ q®¯ cos (¯p) + q®¯ sin (¯p) ®q®¡1 sin (¯p) h i = ®¯q2®¡1 cos2 (¯p) + sin2 (¯p) = ®¯q2®¡1: (26) For the transformation to be canonical, this Poisson bracket should be identically equal to 1 that requires ® = 1=2; ¯ = 2; (27) i.e., Q = q1=2 cos (2p) ;P = q1=2 sin (2p) : (28) The generating function FpQ(p; Q) should satisfy Eq. (21). To use Eq. (21) to ¯nd FpQ(p; Q); one should ¯rst express q and P via the arguments p; Q: From Eq. (28) one obtains @F @F q = ¡ pQ ;P = ¡ pQ : (29) @p @Q Q2 q = ;P = Q tan (2p) : cos2 (2p) Now integrating the equation @F P = Q tan (2p) = ¡ pQ (30) @Q on Q one obtains Q2 F = ¡ tan (2p) + f(p): (31) pQ 2 Here the integration Q-constant f(p) can be obtained from another relation Q2 @F Q2 df(p) q = = ¡ pQ = + : (32) cos2 (2p) @p cos2(2p) dp This yields df(p) = 0 ) f(p) = const; (33) dp an irrelevant constant that can be dropped. Thus FpQ is given by Eq. (31) with f(p) = 0: 3 Vortex dynamics (10 points) Consider the equations of motions describing vortices of strength γi with positions ri = (xi; yi) in the plane X y ¡ y X x ¡ x x_ = ¡ γ i j ; y_ = + γ i j : (34) i j jr ¡ r j2 i j jr ¡ r j2 j6=i i j j6=i i j Consider the Hamiltonian H and the following Poisson brackets: µ ¶ 1 X Xn 1 @f @g @f @g H = ¡ γ γ ln jr ¡ r j; ff; gg = ¡ : (35) 2 i j i j γ @x @y @y @x j6=i i i i i i i (a) Check that Hamilton equations x_ i = fxi; Hg; y_i = fyi; Hg (36) reproduce the equations of motions. (Check that the standard Hamilton equations can be written in this form, too) (b) Show that the following quantities are conserved: X X Px = γiyi;Py = ¡ γixi: (37) i (c) Find the Poisson brackets fPx; Hg, fPy; Hg, and fPx;Pyg, as de¯ned above. (d) Find the solution of the equations of motion for a system of two vortices. Solution: a) The Poisson brackets yield the Hamiltonian equations à ! X 1 @x @H @x @H 1 @H x_ = fx ; Hg = k ¡ k = k k γ @x @y @y @x γ @y j j j j j j k k à ! X 1 @y @H @y @H 1 @H y_ = fy ; Hg = k ¡ k = ¡ : (38) k k γ @x @y @y @x γ @x j j j j j j k k Using Eq. (35) one obtains 1 @H 1 X γ γ @ ln jr ¡ r j 1 X γ γ 1 @jr ¡ r j x_ = = ¡ i j i j = ¡ i j i j (39) k γ @y 2 γ @y 2 γ jr ¡ r j @y k k j6=i k k j6=i k i j k and 1 @H 1 X γ γ @ ln jr ¡ r j 1 X γ γ 1 @jr ¡ r j y_ = ¡ = i j i j = i j i j (40) k γ @x 2 γ @x 2 γ jr ¡ r j @x k k j6=i k k j6=i k i j k In these expressions q 2 2 @jri ¡ rjj @ (xi ¡ xj) + (yi ¡ yj) yi ¡ yj @ (yi ¡ yj) yi ¡ yj = = q = (±ik ¡ ±jk) (41) @yk @yk 2 2 @yk jri ¡ rjj (xi ¡ xj) + (yi ¡ yj) and @jri ¡ rjj xi ¡ xj = (±ik ¡ ±jk) : (42) @xk jri ¡ rjj Substituting these results in the equations above one obtains 1 X γ γ y ¡ y 1 X y ¡ y 1 X y ¡ y x_ = ¡ i j i j (± ¡ ± ) = ¡ γ k j + γ i k (43) k 2 γ jr ¡ r j2 ik jk 2 j jr ¡ r j2 2 i jr ¡ r j2 j6=i k i j j6=k k j k6=i i k that is, X y ¡ y x_ = ¡ γ k i (44) k i jr ¡ r j2 i6=k k i and, similarly, X x ¡ x y_ = γ k i : (45) k i jr ¡ r j2 i6=k k i These equations indeed coincide with those given in the formulation of the problem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hamiltonian Chaos
    Hamiltonian Chaos Niraj Srivastava, Charles Kaufman, and Gerhard M¨uller Department of Physics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0817. Cartesian coordinates, generalized coordinates, canonical coordinates, and, if you can solve the problem, action-angle coordinates. That is not a sentence, but it is classical mechanics in a nutshell. You did mechanics in Cartesian coordinates in introductory physics, probably learned generalized coordinates in your junior year, went on to graduate school to hear about canonical coordinates, and were shown how to solve a Hamiltonian problem by finding the action-angle coordinates. Perhaps you saw the action-angle coordinates exhibited for the harmonic oscillator, and were left with the impression that you (or somebody) could find them for any problem. Well, you now do not have to feel badly if you cannot find them. They probably do not exist! Laplace said, standing on Newton’s shoulders, “Tell me the force and where we are, and I will predict the future!” That claim translates into an important theorem about differential equations—the uniqueness of solutions for given ini- tial conditions. It turned out to be an elusive claim, but it was not until more than 150 years after Laplace that this elusiveness was fully appreciated. In fact, we are still in the process of learning to concede that the proven existence of a solution does not guarantee that we can actually determine that solution. In other words, deterministic time evolution does not guarantee pre- dictability. Deterministic unpredictability or deterministic randomness is the essence of chaos. Mechanical systems whose equations of motion show symp- toms of this disease are termed nonintegrable.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Basic Set-Up 2 Poisson Brackets
    MATHEMATICS 7302 (Analytical Dynamics) YEAR 2016–2017, TERM 2 HANDOUT #12: THE HAMILTONIAN APPROACH TO MECHANICS These notes are intended to be read as a supplement to the handout from Gregory, Classical Mechanics, Chapter 14. 1 The basic set-up I assume that you have already studied Gregory, Sections 14.1–14.4. The following is intended only as a succinct summary. We are considering a system whose equations of motion are written in Hamiltonian form. This means that: 1. The phase space of the system is parametrized by canonical coordinates q =(q1,...,qn) and p =(p1,...,pn). 2. We are given a Hamiltonian function H(q, p, t). 3. The dynamics of the system is given by Hamilton’s equations of motion ∂H q˙i = (1a) ∂pi ∂H p˙i = − (1b) ∂qi for i =1,...,n. In these notes we will consider some deeper aspects of Hamiltonian dynamics. 2 Poisson brackets Let us start by considering an arbitrary function f(q, p, t). Then its time evolution is given by n df ∂f ∂f ∂f = q˙ + p˙ + (2a) dt ∂q i ∂p i ∂t i=1 i i X n ∂f ∂H ∂f ∂H ∂f = − + (2b) ∂q ∂p ∂p ∂q ∂t i=1 i i i i X 1 where the first equality used the definition of total time derivative together with the chain rule, and the second equality used Hamilton’s equations of motion. The formula (2b) suggests that we make a more general definition. Let f(q, p, t) and g(q, p, t) be any two functions; we then define their Poisson bracket {f,g} to be n def ∂f ∂g ∂f ∂g {f,g} = − .
    [Show full text]
  • Time-Dependent Hamiltonian Mechanics on a Locally Conformal
    Time-dependent Hamiltonian mechanics on a locally conformal symplectic manifold Orlando Ragnisco†, Cristina Sardón∗, Marcin Zając∗∗ Department of Mathematics and Physics†, Universita degli studi Roma Tre, Largo S. Leonardo Murialdo, 1, 00146 , Rome, Italy. ragnisco@fis.uniroma3.it Department of Applied Mathematics∗, Universidad Polit´ecnica de Madrid. C/ Jos´eGuti´errez Abascal, 2, 28006, Madrid. Spain. [email protected] Department of Mathematical Methods in Physics∗∗, Faculty of Physics. University of Warsaw, ul. Pasteura 5, 02-093 Warsaw, Poland. [email protected] Abstract In this paper we aim at presenting a concise but also comprehensive study of time-dependent (t- dependent) Hamiltonian dynamics on a locally conformal symplectic (lcs) manifold. We present a generalized geometric theory of canonical transformations and formulate a time-dependent geometric Hamilton-Jacobi theory on lcs manifolds. In contrast to previous papers concerning locally conformal symplectic manifolds, here the introduction of the time dependency brings out interesting geometric properties, as it is the introduction of contact geometry in locally symplectic patches. To conclude, we show examples of the applications of our formalism, in particular, we present systems of differential equations with time-dependent parameters, which admit different physical interpretations as we shall point out. arXiv:2104.02636v1 [math-ph] 6 Apr 2021 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Fundamentals on time-dependent Hamiltonian systems 5 2.1 Time-dependentsystems. ....... 5 2.2 Canonicaltransformations . ......... 6 2.3 Generating functions of canonical transformations . ................ 8 1 3 Geometry of locally conformal symplectic manifolds 8 3.1 Basics on locally conformal symplectic manifolds . ............... 8 3.2 Locally conformal symplectic structures on cotangent bundles............
    [Show full text]
  • Canonical Transformations (Lecture 4)
    Canonical transformations (Lecture 4) January 26, 2016 61/441 Lecture outline We will introduce and discuss canonical transformations that conserve the Hamiltonian structure of equations of motion. Poisson brackets are used to verify that a given transformation is canonical. A practical way to devise canonical transformation is based on usage of generation functions. The motivation behind this study is to understand the freedom which we have in the choice of various sets of coordinates and momenta. Later we will use this freedom to select a convenient set of coordinates for description of partilcle's motion in an accelerator. 62/441 Introduction Within the Lagrangian approach we can choose the generalized coordinates as we please. We can start with a set of coordinates qi and then introduce generalized momenta pi according to Eqs. @L(qk ; q_k ; t) pi = ; i = 1;:::; n ; @q_i and form the Hamiltonian ! H = pi q_i - L(qk ; q_k ; t) : i X Or, we can chose another set of generalized coordinates Qi = Qi (qk ; t), express the Lagrangian as a function of Qi , and obtain a different set of momenta Pi and a different Hamiltonian 0 H (Qi ; Pi ; t). This type of transformation is called a point transformation. The two representations are physically equivalent and they describe the same dynamics of our physical system. 63/441 Introduction A more general approach to the problem of using various variables in Hamiltonian formulation of equations of motion is the following. Let us assume that we have canonical variables qi , pi and the corresponding Hamiltonian H(qi ; pi ; t) and then make a transformation to new variables Qi = Qi (qk ; pk ; t) ; Pi = Pi (qk ; pk ; t) : i = 1 ::: n: (4.1) 0 Can we find a new Hamiltonian H (Qi ; Pi ; t) such that the system motion in new variables satisfies Hamiltonian equations with H 0? What are requirements on the transformation (4.1) for such a Hamiltonian to exist? These questions lead us to canonical transformations.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrals of Motion Key Point #15 from Bachelor Course
    KeyKey12-10-07 see PointPoint http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/˜ #15#10 fromfrom franx/college/ BachelorBachelor mf-sts-07-c4-5 Course:Course:12-10-07 see http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/˜ IntegralsIntegrals ofof franx/college/ MotionMotion mf-sts-07-c4-6 4.2 Constants and Integrals of motion Integrals (BT 3.1 p 110-113) Much harder to define. E.g.: 1 2 Energy (all static potentials): E(⃗x,⃗v)= 2 v + Φ First, we define the 6 dimensional “phase space” coor- dinates (⃗x,⃗v). They are conveniently used to describe Lz (axisymmetric potentials) the motions of stars. Now we introduce: L⃗ (spherical potentials) • Integrals constrain geometry of orbits. • Constant of motion: a function C(⃗x,⃗v, t) which is constant along any orbit: examples: C(⃗x(t1),⃗v(t1),t1)=C(⃗x(t2),⃗v(t2),t2) • 1. Spherical potentials: E,L ,L ,L are integrals of motion, but also E,|L| C is a function of ⃗x, ⃗v, and time t. x y z and the direction of L⃗ (given by the unit vector ⃗n, Integral of motion which is defined by two independent numbers). ⃗n de- • : a function I(x, v) which is fines the plane in which ⃗x and ⃗v must lie. Define coor- constant along any orbit: dinate system with z axis along ⃗n I[⃗x(t1),⃗v(t1)] = I[⃗x(t2),⃗v(t2)] ⃗x =(x1,x2, 0) I is not a function of time ! Thus: integrals of motion are constants of motion, ⃗v =(v1,v2, 0) but constants of motion are not always integrals of motion! → ⃗x and ⃗v constrained to 4D region of the 6D phase space.
    [Show full text]
  • STUDENT HIGHLIGHT – Hassan Najafi Alishah - “Symplectic Geometry, Poisson Geometry and KAM Theory” (Mathematics)
    SEPTEMBER OCTOBER // 2010 NUMBER// 28 STUDENT HIGHLIGHT – Hassan Najafi Alishah - “Symplectic Geometry, Poisson Geometry and KAM theory” (Mathematics) Hassan Najafi Alishah, a CoLab program student specializing in math- The Hamiltonian function (or energy function) is constant along the ematics, is doing advanced work in the Mathematics Departments of flow. In other words, the Hamiltonian function is a constant of motion, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, and the University of Texas at Austin. a principle that is sometimes called the energy conservation law. A This article provides an overview of his research topics. harmonic spring, a pendulum, and a one-dimensional compressible fluid provide examples of Hamiltonian Symplectic and Poisson geometries underlie all me- systems. In the former, the phase spaces are symplec- chanical systems including the solar system, the motion tic manifolds, but for the later phase space one needs of a rigid body, or the interaction of small molecules. the more general concept of a Poisson manifold. The origins of symplectic and Poisson structures go back to the works of the French mathematicians Joseph-Louis A Hamiltonian system with enough suitable constants Lagrange (1736-1813) and Simeon Denis Poisson (1781- of motion can be integrated explicitly and its orbits can 1840). Hermann Weyl (1885-1955) first used “symplectic” be described in detail. These are called completely in- with its modern mathematical meaning in his famous tegrable Hamiltonian systems. Under appropriate as- monograph “The Classical groups.” (The word “sym- sumptions (e.g., in a compact symplectic manifold) plectic” itself is derived from a Greek word that means the motions of a completely integrable Hamiltonian complex.) Lagrange introduced the concept of a system are quasi-periodic.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated List of References Tobias Keip, I7801986 Presentation Method: Poster
    Personal Inquiry – Annotated list of references Tobias Keip, i7801986 Presentation Method: Poster Poster Section 1: What is Chaos? In this section I am introducing the topic. I am describing different types of chaos and how individual perception affects our sense for chaos or chaotic systems. I am also going to define the terminology. I support my ideas with a lot of examples, like chaos in our daily life, then I am going to do a transition to simple mathematical chaotic systems. Larry Bradley. (2010). Chaos and Fractals. Available: www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/. Last accessed 13 May 2010. This website delivered me with a very good introduction into the topic as there are a lot of books and interesting web-pages in the “References”-Sektion. Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. Penguin Books, 1987. The book gave me a very general introduction into the topic. Harald Lesch. (2003-2007). alpha-Centauri . Available: www.br-online.de/br- alpha/alpha-centauri/alpha-centauri-harald-lesch-videothek-ID1207836664586.xml. Last accessed 13. May 2010. A web-page with German video-documentations delivered a lot of vivid examples about chaos for my poster. Poster Section 2: Laplace's Demon and the Butterfly Effect In this part I describe the idea of the so called Laplace's Demon and the theory of cause-and-effect chains. I work with a lot of examples, especially the famous weather forecast example. Also too I introduce the mathematical concept of a dynamic system. Jeremy S. Heyl (August 11, 2008). The Double Pendulum Fractal. British Columbia, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Classical Mechanics for Physics 106Ab Sunil Golwala
    Lecture Notes on Classical Mechanics for Physics 106ab Sunil Golwala Revision Date: September 25, 2006 Introduction These notes were written during the Fall, 2004, and Winter, 2005, terms. They are indeed lecture notes – I literally lecture from these notes. They combine material from Hand and Finch (mostly), Thornton, and Goldstein, but cover the material in a different order than any one of these texts and deviate from them widely in some places and less so in others. The reader will no doubt ask the question I asked myself many times while writing these notes: why bother? There are a large number of mechanics textbooks available all covering this very standard material, complete with worked examples and end-of-chapter problems. I can only defend myself by saying that all teachers understand their material in a slightly different way and it is very difficult to teach from someone else’s point of view – it’s like walking in shoes that are two sizes wrong. It is inevitable that every teacher will want to present some of the material in a way that differs from the available texts. These notes simply put my particular presentation down on the page for your reference. These notes are not a substitute for a proper textbook; I have not provided nearly as many examples or illustrations, and have provided no exercises. They are a supplement. I suggest you skim them in parallel while reading one of the recommended texts for the course, focusing your attention on places where these notes deviate from the texts. ii Contents 1 Elementary Mechanics 1 1.1 Newtonian Mechanics ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Instructional Experiments on Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos (And
    Bibliography of instructional experiments on nonlinear dynamics and chaos Page 1 of 20 Colorado Virtual Campus of Physics Mechanics & Nonlinear Dynamics Cluster Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos Lab Instructional Experiments on Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos (and some related theory papers) overviews of nonlinear & chaotic dynamics prototypical nonlinear equations and their simulation analysis of data from chaotic systems control of chaos fractals solitons chaos in Hamiltonian/nondissipative systems & Lagrangian chaos in fluid flow quantum chaos nonlinear oscillators, vibrations & strings chaotic electronic circuits coupled systems, mode interaction & synchronization bouncing ball, dripping faucet, kicked rotor & other discrete interval dynamics nonlinear dynamics of the pendulum inverted pendulum swinging Atwood's machine pumping a swing parametric instability instabilities, bifurcations & catastrophes chemical and biological oscillators & reaction/diffusions systems other pattern forming systems & self-organized criticality miscellaneous nonlinear & chaotic systems -overviews of nonlinear & chaotic dynamics To top? Briggs, K. (1987), "Simple experiments in chaotic dynamics," Am. J. Phys. 55 (12), 1083-9. Hilborn, R. C. (2004), "Sea gulls, butterflies, and grasshoppers: a brief history of the butterfly effect in nonlinear dynamics," Am. J. Phys. 72 (4), 425-7. Hilborn, R. C. and N. B. Tufillaro (1997), "Resource Letter: ND-1: nonlinear dynamics," Am. J. Phys. 65 (9), 822-34. Laws, P. W. (2004), "A unit on oscillations, determinism and chaos for introductory physics students," Am. J. Phys. 72 (4), 446-52. Sungar, N., J. P. Sharpe, M. J. Moelter, N. Fleishon, K. Morrison, J. McDill, and R. Schoonover (2001), "A laboratory-based nonlinear dynamics course for science and engineering students," Am. J. Phys. 69 (5), 591-7. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~rtagg/CVCP/Ctr_dynamics/Lab_nonlinear_dyn/Bibex_nonline..
    [Show full text]
  • Chaos Theory and Robert Wilson: a Critical Analysis Of
    CHAOS THEORY AND ROBERT WILSON: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WILSON’S VISUAL ARTS AND THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Fine Arts Of Ohio University In partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Shahida Manzoor June 2003 © 2003 Shahida Manzoor All Rights Reserved This dissertation entitled CHAOS THEORY AND ROBERT WILSON: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WILSON’S VISUAL ARTS AND THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES By Shahida Manzoor has been approved for for the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and the College of Fine Arts by Charles S. Buchanan Assistant Professor, School of Interdisciplinary Arts Raymond Tymas-Jones Dean, College of Fine Arts Manzoor, Shahida, Ph.D. June 2003. School of Interdisciplinary Arts Chaos Theory and Robert Wilson: A Critical Analysis of Wilson’s Visual Arts and Theatrical Performances (239) Director of Dissertation: Charles S. Buchanan This dissertation explores the formal elements of Robert Wilson’s art, with a focus on two in particular: time and space, through the methodology of Chaos Theory. Although this theory is widely practiced by physicists and mathematicians, it can be utilized with other disciplines, in this case visual arts and theater. By unfolding the complex layering of space and time in Wilson’s art, it is possible to see the hidden reality behind these artifacts. The study reveals that by applying this scientific method to the visual arts and theater, one can best understand the nonlinear and fragmented forms of Wilson's art. Moreover, the study demonstrates that time and space are Wilson's primary structuring tools and are bound together in a self-renewing process.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 8 Symmetries, Conserved Quantities, and the Labeling of States Angular Momentum
    Lecture 8 Symmetries, conserved quantities, and the labeling of states Angular Momentum Today’s Program: 1. Symmetries and conserved quantities – labeling of states 2. Ehrenfest Theorem – the greatest theorem of all times (in Prof. Anikeeva’s opinion) 3. Angular momentum in QM ˆ2 ˆ 4. Finding the eigenfunctions of L and Lz - the spherical harmonics. Questions you will by able to answer by the end of today’s lecture 1. How are constants of motion used to label states? 2. How to use Ehrenfest theorem to determine whether the physical quantity is a constant of motion (i.e. does not change in time)? 3. What is the connection between symmetries and constant of motion? 4. What are the properties of “conservative systems”? 5. What is the dispersion relation for a free particle, why are E and k used as labels? 6. How to derive the orbital angular momentum observable? 7. How to check if a given vector observable is in fact an angular momentum? References: 1. Introductory Quantum and Statistical Mechanics, Hagelstein, Senturia, Orlando. 2. Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Shankar. 3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonic.html 1 Symmetries, conserved quantities and constants of motion – how do we identify and label states (good quantum numbers) The connection between symmetries and conserved quantities: In the previous section we showed that the Hamiltonian function plays a major role in our understanding of quantum mechanics using it we could find both the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian and the time evolution of the system. What do we mean by when we say an object is symmetric?�What we mean is that if we take the object perform a particular operation on it and then compare the result to the initial situation they are indistinguishable.�When one speaks of a symmetry it is critical to state symmetric with respect to which operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Moon-Earth-Sun: the Oldest Three-Body Problem
    Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem Martin C. Gutzwiller IBM Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598 The daily motion of the Moon through the sky has many unusual features that a careful observer can discover without the help of instruments. The three different frequencies for the three degrees of freedom have been known very accurately for 3000 years, and the geometric explanation of the Greek astronomers was basically correct. Whereas Kepler’s laws are sufficient for describing the motion of the planets around the Sun, even the most obvious facts about the lunar motion cannot be understood without the gravitational attraction of both the Earth and the Sun. Newton discussed this problem at great length, and with mixed success; it was the only testing ground for his Universal Gravitation. This background for today’s many-body theory is discussed in some detail because all the guiding principles for our understanding can be traced to the earliest developments of astronomy. They are the oldest results of scientific inquiry, and they were the first ones to be confirmed by the great physicist-mathematicians of the 18th century. By a variety of methods, Laplace was able to claim complete agreement of celestial mechanics with the astronomical observations. Lagrange initiated a new trend wherein the mathematical problems of mechanics could all be solved by the same uniform process; canonical transformations eventually won the field. They were used for the first time on a large scale by Delaunay to find the ultimate solution of the lunar problem by perturbing the solution of the two-body Earth-Moon problem.
    [Show full text]