Lagrange Multipliers in Calculus of Variations

Curl
Messages
756
Reaction score
0
In Lagrangian mechanics, can anyone show how to find the extrema of he action functional if you have more constraints than degrees of freedom (for example if the constraints are nonholonomic) using Lagrange Multipliers?

I've looked everywhere for this (books, papers, websites etc.) but none of them use the Calc. of Variations approach, they simply say something like "well assume a multiplier exists that makes this term zero" and go from there. I've never seen this derived from Hamilton's principle, which is what I think this is all about. I'll bet Lagrange looked at the problem in terms of finding a stationary point of a function, then applied the same idea to functionals. I'd like to see how this works, so I'd appreciate if someone could show me.

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Here's what I mean:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Classi...#Lagrange_multipliers_and_constraining_forces

They define a new Lagrangian,
\tilde L = L - \lambda(t)G(\boldsymbol x)

Where they subtract the lagrange multiplier times the constraint function from the usual Lagrangian. Why? Can anyone show why this is?

From what I know, we have an action function defined:
S=\int_{t1}^{t2}f(q,q',t)dt
and this function must be stationary for the correct path of the particle(s). For the unconstrained case, I know that S is stationary if the function integrated is the Lagrangian. But if it is constrained, can we do this?
\nabla S = \lambda \nabla G for a constraint function G(q,q',t)
so then can we do this:
\frac{\partial S}{\partial q}=\lambda \frac{\partial G}{\partial q} , \frac{\partial S}{\partial q'}=\lambda \frac{\partial G}{\partial q'},\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}=\lambda \frac{\partial G}{\partial t} ?

I'm stuck here...
 
Last edited:
1) You can't have more (non-redundant) constraints than degrees of freedom.
2) If you had the same number of constraints as degrees of freedom, the constraints would determine the entire motion.
3) You are free to add G because G is defined to be 0. You are adding zero to your Lagrangian.
 
Then can you show that the \lambda(t)G(\boldsymbol x) is equal to the constraint forces?

And can you show that the multiplier is unique? And under what conditions it is unique?
 
What you would have is the standard Lagrangian formula:
{d \over dt}{\partial\tilde{L} \over \partial \dot q} - {\partial\tilde{L} \over \partial q} = 0
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top