Geodesics of a Sphere: Minimizing Integral and Solving for Great Circle Equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter c299792458
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geodesics Sphere
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the geodesics of a sphere using Lagrange multipliers, specifically minimizing an integral related to the velocity of a particle constrained to the surface of the sphere. The original poster seeks clarification on the Euler-Lagrange equation derived from this minimization problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the minimization of the integral of the squared velocity, questioning the assumptions regarding the Lagrange multiplier and the implications of setting the velocity to zero. There is discussion about the nature of the constraints and how they affect the formulation of the problem.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants raising questions about the validity of certain assumptions and the implications of the Euler-Lagrange equation. Some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of the constraints, but no consensus has been reached on the approach to combine the results into the equation of a great circle.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of the constraints imposed by the problem, particularly the requirement that the position vector remains on the sphere, which introduces complexity into the minimization process. The participants are also considering the implications of integrating the Euler equation and the conditions under which certain assumptions hold.

c299792458
Messages
67
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi, just want to get a couple of things straight regarding finding the geodesics of a sphere not using polar coordinates, but rather, Lagrange multipliers...

I want to minimize I = int (|x-dot|2 dt)
subject to the constraint |x|=1 (sphere)
which gives an Euler equation of \lambdax - x-doubledot = 0

I have to show that the Euler equation is actually |x-dot|2x - x-doubledot = 0
Is it right to assume that \lambda=|x-dot|2 simply by the fact that it minimizes I* = int [|x-dot|2 - \lambda(|x|2-1)dt] which is \geq0, so the \lambda that minimizes I* is |x-dot|2?

If I then try to integrate the Euler equation, then I get a SHM equation:

x1= A1 cos(|x-dot| t - C1) where A, C are constants
and similarly for x2, x3

But how do I combine them to give the equation of a great circle, since I don't know the Ci's?

Thank you for any enlightenment!


Homework Equations


See above


The Attempt at a Solution


See above
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So you are trying to minimise the following:
<br /> \int |\dot{x}|^{2}dt<br />
One way to think about this to say that \dot{x}=0 which integrates up to x=\textrm{constant} which implies that |x|^{2}=\textrm{constant}. Does that help?
 
Thanks, hunt_mat,
Why can you take x-dot = 0?
 
c299792458 said:

Homework Statement


Hi, just want to get a couple of things straight regarding finding the geodesics of a sphere not using polar coordinates, but rather, Lagrange multipliers...

I want to minimize I = int (|x-dot|2 dt)
subject to the constraint |x|=1 (sphere)
which gives an Euler equation of \lambdax - x-doubledot = 0

I have to show that the Euler equation is actually |x-dot|2x - x-doubledot = 0
Is it right to assume that \lambda=|x-dot|2 simply by the fact that it minimizes I* = int [|x-dot|2 - \lambda(|x|2-1)dt] which is \geq0, so the \lambda that minimizes I* is |x-dot|2?

If I then try to integrate the Euler equation, then I get a SHM equation:

x1= A1 cos(|x-dot| t - C1) where A, C are constants
and similarly for x2, x3

But how do I combine them to give the equation of a great circle, since I don't know the Ci's?

Thank you for any enlightenment!


Homework Equations


See above


The Attempt at a Solution


See above

Your formulation is incorrect: it should be \min \int |\dot{x}(t)|^2 dt, subject to |x(t)|^2 = 1 \; \forall t. So, basically, you have infinitely many constraints, one for each t.

RGV
 
c299792458 said:
Thanks, hunt_mat,
Why can you take x-dot = 0?
Because
<br /> \int |\dot{x}(t)|^{2}dt\geqslant 0<br />
for all t and so it must be smallest when the integrand is identically zero.
 
hunt_mat said:
Because
<br /> \int |\dot{x}(t)|^{2}dt\geqslant 0<br />
for all t and so it must be smallest when the integrand is identically zero.

I guess I meant how does one know that 0 is attained? Also, I believe I was given that |x|^2 =1 (constant)
However does your suggestion mean that I can set the augmented integrand |x-dot|2-lamda*|x|2 to 0? then I will have the desired lamda = |x-dot|2 ?
 
Last edited:
Problem resolved! Thanks everyone.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K