Can The Lagrangian L=T-V Be Derived?

  • Thread starter Thread starter morangta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and understanding of the Lagrangian, expressed as L = T - V, in the context of classical mechanics. Participants explore whether this expression can be derived or if it is simply a defined quantity that leads to the correct equations of motion when used in the Euler-Lagrange equations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the derivation of the Lagrangian and discuss its intuitive appeal. Some express uncertainty about the necessity of intuition in formulating the Lagrangian, while others highlight the conditions under which the potential energy is defined.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the relationship between the Lagrangian and the conservation of energy, while others express confusion about specific explanations. There is no explicit consensus on the derivation of the Lagrangian.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the importance of time-independent interactions in defining potential energy and the implications for the observable total energy. There is also a reference to the level of understanding among participants, indicating a range of familiarity with the topic.

morangta
Messages
23
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Thank you for answering my question about setting the Euler-Langrangian expression to zero separately for each coordinate (ehild ans.=yes). Now my question is: Can the Lagrangian be derived, or is it the expression, when inserted into the Euler-Lagrange equation(s), that gives the correct equation(s) of motion? In other words, you have to be someone like Lagrange to have the intuition from the beginning what to enter into the E-L equations for L?


Homework Equations


L=T-V


The Attempt at a Solution


I think there is no derivation, but I want to be sure. Thank you for reading my question. BTW, I read in the Wikipedia article on 'Lagrangian' that the generalized coordinates used in writing the expression L=T-V do not have to be orthogonal.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To answer your question directly, no, the Lagrangian cannot be derived. It is defined as T - U. However, I think the better question is to ask why the quantity T - U should be of any interest at all. The Lagrangian turns out to be interesting simply because it works - I guess there is a sense in which Lagrange had to have some sense of intuition here.
 
Thank you for answering my question about the Lagrangian L=T-V. Yes, there does not seem to be anything intuitive about it.
 
Let's just say the the 'U' is the only sensitive point of L = T-U, because it makes sense iff the classical system has time-independent interactions. Then the observable total energy is conserved which makes us conclude that U is the potential energy.
 
Thank you, dextercioby, but I did not understand your explanation. Am working at a very basic level here.
Regards, Ted.
 
I believe Dextercioby was pointing out that when our coordinates are "natural", that is, the relation between the generalized coordinates and underlying cartesian coordinates are independent of time, the observable total energy H = T + U. Additionally, if H is indep. of t, then it is conserved. Thus the U, in H = T + U, will correspond exactly to the potential energy in L = T - U. This is all derivable from Hamilton's equations. Classical Mechanics by Taylor, ch 13 explains this very well if you are curious.
 
OK, tannerbk. Thank you for the reply.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K