1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Configuration Space In Classical Mechanics: Definition

  1. Nov 8, 2011 #1

    I'm a bit confused wit the concept Configuration Space.

    First, the professor defined generalised coordinates as such:

    U got a system of n particles, each particle has 3 coordinates(x,y,z), so u got 3n degrees of freedom.
    If the system has k holonomic constraints, u got 3n-k degrees of freedom.
    Instead of working with cartesian coordinates, we now define a new set of coordinates q1,q2,..,q3n-k.

    These are the generalised coordinates of the system,3n-k in total.

    I get this.

    Then a little bit further, when explaining Hamilton's Variatonal Principle, he defines a Configuration Space.

    "The configuration space of a system is a 3n-k dimensional space with the generalised coordinates on the coordinate-axes."

    So far, so good.

    On the reference list of this course,Classical Mechanics of Goldstein is listed.

    First page of the second chapter of Goldstein:

    This n-dimensional space is therefore known as the configuration space...

    In classical mechanics from Kibble, I didn't even found such thing as config space.

    Also, on the internet I've found another course of Classical Mechanics:

    http://www.phys.ttu.edu/~huang24/Teaching/Phys5306/CH2A.pdf" [Broken]

    There they say

    Here they say n generalised coordinates in n dimensional space, not like according to my professor 3n-k dimensions with 3n-k generalised coordinates!
    Also, there's a little graph with on the horizontal axis q1 and on the vertical axis q2, but there are n dimension, according to their course !!!
    But for the axes only q1 and q2 is used, so why not qn-1 and qn.
    But a graph with only two axis, is 2-dimensional right?
    It is not ndimensional

    See my frustration here?

    Please help me.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The dimensionality of configuration space is always equal to the number of degrees of freedom. The references you've cited are just using the symbol n to denote different things. Your professor is describing N particles moving in three dimensions with k holonomic constraints, so the number of degrees of freedom is n = 3N - k.
  4. Nov 10, 2011 #3
    I thought so myself.My professor made some mistakes, he used little n instead big N for the particles, very confusing at first.

    Now is it clear, thanx :)


    Still not 100% clear:

    Given is a simple graph of the configuration space with the generalised coordinates q1 and q2 on the axes, this is only 2-dimensional right, that I dont get?

    Why put only those generalised coordinates on the axes? Is it equivalent to a simple x and y axes?

    I need this to define the path of motion of the system.

    U define a system that has N particles, so N generalised coordinates.But system has 3N-K dimensions, so u need 3N-k axes, and this is impossible to plot?

    This is the simple graph below, I found it on the net.It is from Texas University.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook