MHB Derivation of Euler-Lagrange equations w/ Hamilton's equations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the Euler-Lagrange equations using Hamilton's equations and the definition of the Hamiltonian in terms of the Lagrangian. The Hamiltonian is defined as ℋ = 𝑞̇𝑝 - ℒ, leading to the relationship ℒ = 𝑞̇𝑝 - ℋ. A key point raised is the importance of recognizing that the momentum p is a function of 𝑞 and 𝑞̇, which affects the partial derivatives involved in the derivation. The hint provided emphasizes the need to apply the Legendre transformation correctly to derive the Euler-Lagrange equations effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Familiarity with Lagrangian mechanics
  • Knowledge of Legendre transformations
  • Proficiency in calculus, particularly partial derivatives
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Legendre transformation in detail
  • Learn how to apply Hamilton's equations to derive equations of motion
  • Explore the relationship between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations
  • Practice deriving the Euler-Lagrange equations from various Hamiltonians
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in physics, particularly those studying classical mechanics, as well as educators teaching advanced mechanics concepts.

skate_nerd
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
I've got a problem that asks us to derive the Euler-Lagrange equations by only using Hamilton's equations and the definition of the Hamiltonian in terms of the Lagrangian. Here's what I tried:

The Hamiltonian is defined as
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H} = \dot{q}_ip_i - \mathcal{L}
\end{align*}
(where the summation convention is implied), and solving for $\mathcal{L}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L} = \dot{q}_ip_i - \mathcal{H}
\end{align*}
Taking the partial derivative with respect to $\dot{q}_i$ on both sides of the above equation, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{q}_i} &= \frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}_i}\left[\dot{q}_ip_i - \mathcal{H}\right] \\
&= p_i - \frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\dot{q}_i}
\end{align*}
We are given that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{q}_i} = p_i
\end{align*}
so going back to our definition for the Hamiltonian, we have
\begin{align*}
p_i = p_i - \frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\dot{q}_i}
\end{align*}
So we find that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\dot{q}_i} = 0
\end{align*}

Clearly what I have tried is going nowhere, but the professor gave a hint where he says to start with the definition of the Hamiltonian and invert it to solve for the Lagrangian, which is exactly what I did. I feel like I'm at a bit of a roadblock, so any hints would be appreciated. Thanks everybody
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi skatenerd,

This is a nice question.

skatenerd said:
I've got a problem that asks us to derive the Euler-Lagrange equations by only using Hamilton's equations and the definition of the Hamiltonian in terms of the Lagrangian. Here's what I tried:

The Hamiltonian is defined as
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H} = \dot{q}_ip_i - \mathcal{L}
\end{align*}
(where the summation convention is implied), and solving for $\mathcal{L}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L} = \dot{q}_ip_i - \mathcal{H}
\end{align*}
Taking the partial derivative with respect to $\dot{q}_i$ on both sides of the above equation, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{q}_i} &= \frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}_i}\left[\dot{q}_ip_i - \mathcal{H}\right] \\
&= p_i - \frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\dot{q}_i}
\end{align*}
We are given that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{q}_i} = p_i
\end{align*}
so going back to our definition for the Hamiltonian, we have
\begin{align*}
p_i = p_i - \frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\dot{q}_i}
\end{align*}
So we find that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\dot{q}_i} = 0
\end{align*}

Clearly what I have tried is going nowhere, but the professor gave a hint where he says to start with the definition of the Hamiltonian and invert it to solve for the Lagrangian, which is exactly what I did. I feel like I'm at a bit of a roadblock, so any hints would be appreciated. Thanks everybody

Your attempt was good and was in the right direction. Given your calculation, I imagine you've overlooked the same thing I did when I first encountered the relationship between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics. To simplify things, I will present things in one generalized coordinate dimension and let you work out how to extend things to the case of several variables (i.e. I won't have any $i$ indices anywhere)

Note that via the Legendre transformation, $p=p(q,\dot{q})$ and so its partial derivative with respect to $\dot{q}$ isn't zero in general. Furthermore, you can use this fact to further expand the partial derivative of the Hamiltonian in your calculation. From here you should be able to apply Hamilton's equations to derive the Euler-Lagrange equations.

Hopefully this can help you make some sense out of things this time around.
 
GJA said:
Hi skatenerd,

This is a nice question.
Your attempt was good and was in the right direction. Given your calculation, I imagine you've overlooked the same thing I did when I first encountered the relationship between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics. To simplify things, I will present things in one generalized coordinate dimension and let you work out how to extend things to the case of several variables (i.e. I won't have any $i$ indices anywhere)

Note that via the Legendre transformation, $p=p(q,\dot{q})$ and so its partial derivative with respect to $\dot{q}$ isn't zero in general. Furthermore, you can use this fact to further expand the partial derivative of the Hamiltonian in your calculation. From here you should be able to apply Hamilton's equations to derive the Euler-Lagrange equations.

Hopefully this can help you make some sense out of things this time around.

Thanks for the response! I think I see what you mean. When I took the partial derivative with respect to $\dot{q}_i$ I neglected the fact that $p_i$ is a function of $\dot{q}_i$. I'll rework this keeping that in mind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
582
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
388
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
598
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K