Hamiltons Principle proving Newtons laws?

AI Thread Summary
Hamilton's principle demonstrates that the path a particle takes minimizes the action integral of the Lagrangian, which can be generalized to accommodate various coordinate systems. This generalization is essential because it allows for the application of symmetries in complex systems, making it easier to derive Newton's laws for multiple particles. The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations utilize different mathematical structures, specifically the tangent and cotangent bundles, to represent configurations and velocities or momenta, respectively. Understanding these concepts requires a shift in perspective regarding how space and motion are represented in physics. Grasping Hamilton's principle is crucial for connecting classical mechanics with more advanced formulations.
frenchyc
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
My teacher asked us too prove that Hamiltons principle proves that Newtons equations of motion hold for N particles. I'm not sure that i fully grasp the concept but this is my understanding so far:

Using the lagrangian we can prove Newtons law for specific situations, however Hamiltons principle allows us to make the specific situation into generalized coordintes. This is my understanding so far, but i feel that i don't completely understand. Why do we need it to be in generalized coordinates? Why does hamiltons principle allow it to change to generalized coordinates?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One of the strengths of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations is the ability to use generalized coordinates, which can often be chosen to take advantage of symmetries in the system. To recover Newton's equations, you should choose the generalized coordinates to be the rectangular coordinates associated with Euclidean space.

The above formulations can be given a geometrical interpretation in which the "space" associated with the Lagrangian formulation is a certain manifold called the tangent-bundle and the Hamiltonian formulation with the cotangent-bundle (more generally, a symplectic manifold).
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but i was not referring to the Hamiltonian, but to Hamilton's principle. The principle that states that the path that a particle follows is such that the action integral of the Lagrangian from point 1 to point 2 is stationary. I am not sure if you were referring to that and i simply didn't understand it or if there was a miscommunication
 
the configuration of the system is described using a "configuration space" Q (which could be described in any convenient set of coordinates for it)
the tangent-bundle is essentially the "space of configurations and velocities" (TQ)
the cotangent-bundle is essentially the "space of configurations and momenta" (T*Q)

possibly useful:
http://books.google.com/books?id=I2...P79&sig=UrhQn9eZ_avFCBudNiPHYVjRjIM#PPA226,M1
 
thank you. I think my problem stems from me having difficulty wrapping my mind around this concept of changing the way we look at space.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top