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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the derivation of generalized coordinates in Lagrangian mechanics as presented in Goldstein's book. A key point is the introduction of generalized configuration-space coordinates, ##q_j##, which describe particle positions, leading to the expression for velocity, ##\vec{v}_i##. It emphasizes the independence of ##q_j## and ##\dot{q}_j## as variables in the Lagrangian framework, which is crucial for understanding the partial derivatives involved. Participants express frustration over the lack of clear definitions in textbooks regarding these concepts. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of grasping the independence of these variables for a better understanding of the Hamiltonian principle.
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 vanhees71
Back
Top