Graduate Chain Rule in Lagrangian Transformation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the chain rule in the context of Lagrangian transformations, specifically referencing Goldstein's textbook. The key equation presented is the expression for the time derivative of the generalized coordinates, ##\dot q_{i} = \frac {\partial q_{i}}{\partial s_{j}} \dot s_{j} + \frac{\partial q_{i}}{\partial t}##. Participants clarify that the term ##\frac{\partial q_{i}}{\partial t}## arises from the standard chain rule, and it is confirmed that ##q## is independent of ##\dot s##. The conversation also highlights the advantages of using the Hamiltonian formalism for more general transformations in classical mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics and its formulations
  • Familiarity with the chain rule in calculus
  • Knowledge of Hamiltonian mechanics and canonical transformations
  • Basic concepts of phase space and symplectic structure
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Hamiltonian formalism in classical mechanics
  • Explore generalized Hamilton principles and their applications
  • Learn about Poisson brackets and their significance in dynamics
  • Investigate the symplectic structure of phase space in detail
USEFUL FOR

Students of classical mechanics, physicists interested in advanced mechanics, and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations.

SEGFAULT1119
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I'm trying to follow Goldstein textbook to show that the Lagrangian is invariant under coordinate transformation. I got confused by the step below
So
## L = L(q_{i}(s_{j},\dot s_{j},t),\dot q_{i}(s_{j},\dot s_{j},t),t)##

The book shows that ##\dot q_{i} = \frac {\partial q_{i}}{\partial s_{j}} \dot s_{j} + \frac{\partial q_{i}}{\partial t} ##,and I'm not sure where the ##\frac{\partial q_{i}}{\partial t} ## term come from? I've tried to look up chain rules for coordinate transformation but I can't find anything.

Please help!

Thank you :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is just the standard chain rule. Consider a function ##f(h,g)## where ##h## and ##g## are functions of some parameter ##t## and differentiate ##f## with respect to ##t##. The chain rule now states
$$
\frac{df}{dt} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial h} \frac{dh}{dt} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial g} \frac{dg}{dt}.
$$
Now, if ##g = t## you would obtain ##dg/dt = dt/dt = 1## and ##\partial f/\partial g = \partial f/\partial t## and therefore
$$
\frac{df}{dt} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial h} \frac{dh}{dt} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}.
$$

What is unclear is why a term ##(\partial q/\partial \dot s) \ddot s## is not included. You can only ignore this term if ##q## is a function only of ##s## and not of ##\dot s##.
 
  • Like
Likes SEGFAULT1119
@Oroduin,

You are correct. q is independent of ##\dot s##. I mistyped the question. And thank you for your answer.
 
If you want more general transformations, it's better to use the generalized Hamilton principle in terms of the Hamiltonian rather the Lagrangian formulation. This leads to the more general canonical transformations in phase space rather than the less general diffeomorphism invariance of the Lagrangian formalism in configuration space.

The Hamiltonian phase-space formalism turns out to be the most valuable form of classical mechanics from a fundamental-physics point of view since it reveals the symplectic structure of phase space and allows for a quasi algebraic formulation of the dynamics in terms of Poisson brackets, which brings the classical theory very close to its extension to quantum theory.
 
In sci-fi when an author is talking about space travellers or describing the movement of galaxies they will say something like “movement in space only means anything in relation to another object”. Examples of this would be, a space ship moving away from earth at 100 km/s, or 2 galaxies moving towards each other at one light year per century. I think it would make it easier to describe movement in space if we had three axis that we all agree on and we used 0 km/s relative to the speed of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
759
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
547
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K