Past exam of the physics 1 paper of the University of Oxford / 2014 resit / 8 / a

Take $\theta$ from the downward vertical. Under the conventional light-rod idealization, only the endpoint point mass contributes appreciably. Its speed is $l\dot{\theta }$, and its gravitational potential energy is $-mgl\cos \theta$. ThereforeAn additive constant in the potential energy has no effect on the Euler-Lagrange equation.

Rod-mass qualification: “thin” and “uniform” do not imply negligible mass. If the uniform rod has a finite unspecified mass $M_r$, its pivot moment of inertia is $M_r{l}^2/3$ and its centre of mass lies $l/2$ from the pivot. For a pendulum with a uniform rod and an endpoint mass, the general answer isThis formula covers either convention without inventing a rod mass. A result involving only the specified $m,l,g$ uses $M_r=0$ unless an additional relation for $M_r$ is stated.

For the general Lagrangian just obtained, the Euler-Lagrange equation givesUsing the small-angle approximation $\sin \theta \simeq \theta$, this is simple harmonic motion with ${\omega }_0^2=A/I$. ThusThe endpoint mass cancels in the light-rod limit. A concrete comparison shows why the finite rod cannot silently be included: the same specified endpoint $m$ with $M_r=m$ gives $T=2\pi \sqrt{8l/(9g)}$, distinct from the negligible-rod result. This is a physical pendulum when the rod contributes, and a simple pendulum in the light-rod limit. Both expressions require small oscillation amplitude; the full sine equation remains nonlinear.