Lagrange's equations to Newton's equations

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Reshma
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between Lagrange's equations and Newton's equations of motion, specifically exploring how Lagrange's equations can reduce to Newton's laws when Cartesian coordinates are used as generalized coordinates. The scope includes theoretical derivation and conceptual understanding of forces derived from potential energy.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Lagrangian as L=T-V, where T is the kinetic energy and V is the potential energy, and seeks assistance in proving the reduction to Newton's equations.
  • Another participant asks what results from substituting T and V into Lagrange's equations, prompting further exploration of the equations.
  • A participant derives the Lagrange equation for the variable x and questions how it relates to Newton's second law of motion.
  • There is a query about the term -∂V/∂x and its relation to net force.
  • One participant asserts that the Lagrange equation presented is incorrect, stating that the right-hand side should be zero, not Q, and argues that this leads to a form of Newton's second law.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between conservative forces derived from potential energy and non-conservative forces represented by Q, seeking clarification on these concepts.
  • There is a reiteration of the claim that the Lagrange equation should not include Q on the right-hand side, reinforcing the connection to Newton's second law.
  • A later reply acknowledges the derivation of Newton's second law from the Lagrange equation, distinguishing between conservative and non-conservative forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of the Lagrange equation presented, particularly concerning the inclusion of Q on the right-hand side. While some participants argue that this leads to a valid form of Newton's second law, others challenge this interpretation, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of conservative and non-conservative forces, as well as the implications of including external forces in the Lagrange equation.

Reshma
Messages
749
Reaction score
6
I want to show the Lagrange's equations reduces to Newton's equation of motion if we take the Cartesian coordinates as the generalised coordinates.

So let T be the K.E. of the system and V be the P.E. of the system. So the Lagrangian is L=T-V.

So [tex]T = \frac{1}{2}m(\dot{x}^2 + \dot{y}^2 + \dot{z}^2)[/tex]

& [tex]V = V(x,y,z)[/tex]
Help me proceed with the proof :frown:.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually,

[tex] T = \frac{1}{2}m \left( \dot{x}^2 + \dot{y}^2 + \dot{z}^2 \right).[/tex]

What do you get when you substitute [itex]T[/itex] and [itex]V[/tex] into Lagrange's equations?<br /> <br /> Regards,<br /> George[/itex]
 
Sorry for the typo and thank you replying. I made the substitution in Lagrange's equation.
[tex]\frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q_i}}\right) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q_i}}= Q_i'[/tex]

Setting q1=x,q2=y,q3=z

I get the Lagrange's equation for variable x as:
[tex]m\ddot{x} + \frac{\partial V}{\partial x} = Q_1'[/tex]

How does this equation show Newton's second law of motion?
 
What is

[tex] -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}?[/tex]

Regards,
George
 
Umm...is it part of the net force?
 
Reshma said:
Umm...is it part of the net force?

Yes. What is the force that results from a potential [itex]V=V\left(x,y,z\right)[/itex], and what type of force is it?

Regards,
George
 
YOUR LAGRANGE EQUATION IS NOT RIGHT. THERE SOULD BE ZERO ON THE WRITE HAND SIDE NOT Q. AGAIN IF YOU PUT Q=0 IN YOUR SECOND EQUATION YOU GET;
MASS X ACCELERATION = - THE DIREVATIVE OF THE POTENTIAL WITH RESPECT TO x.
= FORCE.
ISN'T THIS THE SECOND LAW OF NEWTON?
 
samalkhaiat said:
YOUR LAGRANGE EQUATION IS NOT RIGHT. THERE SOULD BE ZERO ON THE WRITE HAND SIDE NOT Q. AGAIN IF YOU PUT Q=0 IN YOUR SECOND EQUATION YOU GET;
MASS X ACCELERATION = - THE DIREVATIVE OF THE POTENTIAL WITH RESPECT TO x.
= FORCE.
ISN'T THIS THE SECOND LAW OF NEWTON?

The terms involving the potential and the terms involving the Q' s represent different types of forces. This is what I was trying to point the way towards in my last post.

Regards,
George
 
Thank you very much for all your replies.
George Jones said:
Yes. What is the force that results from a potential [itex]V=V\left(x,y,z\right)[/itex], and what type of force is it?

Regards,
George
There is part of the force derivable from PE and the other part independent of the PE. So one has to be the conservative part and the other the non-conservative part. So Q's represent the non-conservative parts and V(x,y,z) represent the conservative part, right? Can you elaborate more on these forces?
 
  • #10
samalkhaiat said:
YOUR LAGRANGE EQUATION IS NOT RIGHT. THERE SOULD BE ZERO ON THE WRITE HAND SIDE NOT Q. AGAIN IF YOU PUT Q=0 IN YOUR SECOND EQUATION YOU GET;
MASS X ACCELERATION = - THE DIREVATIVE OF THE POTENTIAL WITH RESPECT TO x.
= FORCE.
ISN'T THIS THE SECOND LAW OF NEWTON?
Be easy on the Caps :wink:!
 
  • #11
so you wrote down Lagrange equation with a source on the right hand side of it. Then you ask about deriving Newton second law from it. But you actually did derive it.
The forces as you said conservative (derivable from potential) and non-conservative (which are not) like friction forces etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K