How to see this equality (Lagrangian mechanics)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical equality \nabla_{\textbf q} \langle \textbf q, P \textbf q \rangle = P \textbf q, which is crucial for deriving equations of motion from the Lagrangian. Participants clarify that \textbf q is an n-dimensional vector and P is a real, Hermitian matrix. The Lagrangian is expressed as \mathcal L = \frac{m}{2} \langle \dot{\textbf q}, \dot{\textbf q} \rangle - \frac{k}{2} \langle \textbf q, P \textbf q \rangle, leading to the equation \ddot{\textbf q} = -\frac{k}{2m} P \textbf q. One contributor expresses confusion about the factor of 1/2 in their calculations, suggesting a potential oversight in applying the symmetry of matrix P. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly interpreting the Lagrangian and its derivatives for accurate results in Lagrangian mechanics.
nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello,

Can anybody tell me why \nabla_{\textbf q} \langle \textbf q, P \textbf q \rangle = P \textbf q?

Explanation of notations:
q is an n-dimensional vector: \textbf q = (q_1, q_2, \cdots, q_n)^T
P is an nxn-dimensional, real, Hermitian matrix
\nabla_{\textbf q} := \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial q_1}, \cdots, \frac{\partial}{\partial q_n} \right)^T

Background story: I know the (specific) Lagrangian is \mathcal L = \frac{m}{2} \langle \dot{\textbf q},\dot{\textbf q} \rangle - \frac{k}{2} \langle \textbf q, P \textbf q \rangle and the book then tells me that \ddot{ \textbf q } = - \frac{k}{2m} P \textbf q and I presume that they derived this from the Lagrangian equations \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt} \left( \nabla_{\dot{\textbf q}} \mathcal L \right) = \nabla_{\textbf q} \mathcal L but to do that I need to have the above equality, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure that 1/2 is there? I'm not getting the 1/2 in my calculations. It's much simpler for me to do the calculation in terms of components:

L=\frac{1}{2}m\sum_k \dot{q}_k^2-\frac{1}{2}k\sum_{n,m}q_n P_{nm} q_m

Giving:
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}=m\dot{q}_i
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=-\frac{1}{2}k\sum_{n,m} (\delta_{in}P_{nm}q_m+\delta_{im}q_nP_{nm})

Thus by the symmetry of P (real+hermitian = symmetric):
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=-k\sum_{n} P_{in}q_n

I get then:
\ddot{q}_i=-\frac{k}{m}\sum_{n} P_{in}q_n

This is the component form of your last equation, except I'm missing the factor of 1/2. I could have made a mistake somewhere though.
 
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top