A Question on Goldstein and D'Alembert's Principle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of D'Alembert's Principle in deriving Lagrange's equations as presented in Goldstein's text. Key points include the use of the chain rule for partial differentiation to express velocity and its derivatives in terms of generalized coordinates and time. Participants clarify that the definition relates to the chain rule for functions dependent on generalized coordinates and time. It is confirmed that if a function lacks explicit time dependence, the partial derivative with respect to time can be omitted. Overall, the conversation focuses on understanding the mathematical connections between these principles in classical mechanics.
coca-cola
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hey all,

I am reading Goldstein and I am at a point where I can't follow along. He has started with D'Alembert's Principle and he is showing that Lagrange's equation can be derived from it. He states the chain rule for partial differentiation:
\frac{d\textbf{r}_i}{dt}=\sum_k \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_k}\dot{q}_k+\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial t}

Then he states, by the equation above, that:
\frac{d}{dt}\frac{d\mathbf{r}_i}{dq_j}=\sum_k \frac{\partial^2 \textbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j \partial q_k}\dot{q}_k+\frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j\partial t}

He further states from the first equation that:
\frac{\partial \mathbf{v}_i}{\partial \dot{q}_j}=\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j}

I have tried to connect the dots but I cannot succeed. Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think the first relation as a definition for an operator

\frac{d}{dt}=\sum_k \frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\dot{q}_k+\frac{\partial }{\partial t}

The second equation follows immdiately from applying ##\frac{d}{dt}## to ##\frac{d\mathbf{r}_i}{dq_j}## and the last one from applying ##\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot q_j}## to the first equation.
 
  • Like
Likes coca-cola
Thanks!

So is the definition simply the chain rule of a function that depends on q_1, q_2,...q_N, and t? If the function had no explicit dependence on t, even though the generalized coordinates did, would you simply drop the partial with respect to t?
 
coca-cola said:
Thanks!

So is the definition simply the chain rule of a function that depends on q_1, q_2,...q_N, and t? If the function had no explicit dependence on t, even though the generalized coordinates did, would you simply drop the partial with respect to t?
Yes, certainly.

--
lightarrow
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top