Derivation of Euler Lagrange's equations from D'alemberts principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of Euler Lagrange's equations from D'Alembert's principle, focusing on the use of generalized coordinates and the independence of these coordinates and their time derivatives in the context of Lagrangian mechanics. Participants express confusion and seek clarification on the concepts presented in Goldstein's textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the derivation presented in Goldstein's book, indicating it is not trivial for them.
  • Another participant explains the introduction of generalized configuration-space coordinates, ##q_j##, and how they relate to the velocities ##\vec{v}_i##, emphasizing the independence of ##q_j## and ##\dot{q}_j## as variables in the Lagrangian framework.
  • A participant points out the importance of understanding the independence of ##q## and ##\dot{q}##, suggesting this is a key aspect of the discussion.
  • Several participants note issues with the readability of LaTeX formatting in posts, which affects the clarity of the mathematical expressions being discussed.
  • One participant mentions a lack of clarity in textbooks regarding the definitions used in the Hamiltonian principle, reflecting a common struggle among learners.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of the independence of generalized coordinates and their derivatives, but there is no consensus on the clarity of textbook definitions or the derivation process itself, as confusion persists among some participants.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the absence of clear definitions in textbooks regarding the independence of variables in the Lagrangian framework, which may contribute to misunderstandings. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with the material among participants.

PrathameshR
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
In the derivation given in Goldstein's book it is given
20170913_194509-1.jpeg


I can't understand from where it comes. It's not at all trivial for me but it's presented as if it's trivial.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The point is that you introduce a set of generalized configuration-space coordinates, ##q_j##, describing the position of your particles as
$$\vec{r}_i=\vec{r}_i(q).$$
Then you have
$$\vec{v}_i=\frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{r}_i}{\mathrm{d} t} = \sum_j \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_j} \dot{q}_j.$$
Now you have to know that in the Lagrangian version of the Hamilton principle you consider the space ##(q_j,\dot{q}_j)## with the ##q_j## and ##\dot{q}_j## as independent (!) variables, i.e., whenever you write down a partial derivative with respect to ##q_j## or the ##\dot{q}_j## you consider these variables as the independent variables, and the partial derivative means in taking that derivative you consider all variables fixed except the one with respect to which you differentiate. Then from the above formula, it's immediately clear that
$$\frac{\partial \vec{v}_i}{\partial \dot{q}_j}=\frac{\partial \vec{r}_i}{\partial q_j}.$$
 
vanhees71 said:
The point is that you introduce a set of generalized configuration-space coordinates, ##q_j##, describing the position of your particles as
$$\vec{r}_i=\vec{r}_i(q).$$
Then you have
$$\vec{v}_i=\frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{r}_i}{\mathrm{d} t} = \sum_j \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_j} \dot{q}_j.$$
Now you have to know that in the Lagrangian version of the Hamilton principle you consider the space ##(q_j,\dot{q}_j)## with the ##q_j## and ##\dot{q}_j## as independent (!) variables, i.e., whenever you write down a partial derivative with respect to ##q_j## or the ##\dot{q}_j## you consider these variables as the independent variables, and the partial derivative means in taking that derivative you consider all variables fixed except the one with respect to which you differentiate. Then from the above formula, it's immediately clear that
$$\frac{\partial \vec{v}_i}{\partial \dot{q}_j}=\frac{\partial \vec{r}_i}{\partial q_j}.$$
Sorry but there are a lot of dollar signs and hashtags in your post . I'm not able to read it properly.
 
Then, something's wrong with your browser. You should see formulae instead of the LaTeX source code.
 
vanhees71 said:
Then, something's wrong with your browser. You should see formulae instead of the LaTeX source code.
I was using physics forum app on my android phone. When I opened your reply in chrome browser it showed proper notations and not the source code. Thanks for your answer. The independence of q and q dots is the key here (?). It'll take some time to sink in. Thanks again.
 
Yes, the only problem is that I don't know of any textbook that mentions this definition, and when I've first seen the Hamiltonian principle, I stumbled over the very same problem. I don't know, why no textbook writer thinks that you just should tell your readers your definitions properly! :-((. Don't worry, you'll get used to that soon.
 
vanhees71 said:
Yes, the only problem is that I don't know of any textbook that mentions this definition, and when I've first seen the Hamiltonian principle, I stumbled over the very same problem. I don't know, why no textbook writer thinks that you just should tell your readers your definitions properly! :-((. Don't worry, you'll get used to that soon.
[emoji4] i hope so
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K