Independent coordinates are dependent

In summary, the independent coordinates in a system are in fact dependent because the system traces a path in the configuration space.
  • #1
Kashmir
468
74
(This is not about independence of ##q##, ##\dot q##)

A system has some holonomic constraints. Using them we can have a set of coordinates ##{q_i}##. Since any values for these coordinates is possible we say that these are independent coordinates.

However the system will trace a path in the configuration space ,which means that actually all our independent coordinates are in fact dependent.

Why do we then say that we have independent coordinates?
For example,
Goldstein
>The fundamental problem of the calculus of variations is easily generalized to the case where ##f## is a function of many **independent variables** ##y_{i}##, and their derivatives ##\dot{y}_{i}##. (Of course, all these quantities are considered as functions of the parametric variable ##x##.) Then a variation of the integral ##J##,
##
\delta J=\delta \int_{1}^{2} f\left(y_{1}(x) ; y_{2}(x), \ldots, \dot{y}_{1}(x) ; \dot{y}_{2}(x), \ldots, x\right) d x
##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The idea of Lagrangian mechanics is to analyse the functional form of the system. In the simplest case we have: $$L(x, \dot x) = \frac 1 2 m \dot x^2 - V(x)$$ That is a well-defined function of two variables. For the time being we ignore that those variables will turn out to be related along a specific trajectory.

The Euler-Lagrange equations are generated using this functional approach and minimising the action. All the time treating the Lagrangian as nothing more than a function of two independent variables.

The trick is that this approach leads to equations of motion that are satisfied by the system. There's always a point at which you switch from looking at the system in a generalised functional form, to one where you are looking at a specific trajectory.
 
  • Like
Likes Kashmir and vanhees71
  • #3
Thank you. Please give me some time to fully think about it.
 
  • #4
The problem is partially the physicists sloppy notation. On the one hand they denote with ##x## and ##\dot{x}## simply two independent variables of the Langrange function,
$$(x,\dot{x}) \mapsto L(x,\dot{x}).$$
Then you can take partial derivatives of this function wrt. these independent variables, i.e.,
$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}$$
is the derivative of ##L## with respect to ##x## with ##\dot{x}## kept constant and
$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}$$
is the derivative of ##L## wrt. ##\dot{x}## with ##x## kept constant.

On the other hand you define the action functional, maps a trajectory in configuration space ##t \mapsto x(t)## with time as the parameter of this trajectory:
$$S[x]=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t L[x(t),\dot{x}(t)],$$
where now
$$\dot{x}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{\mathrm{d} t}.$$
If you now want to take the total time derivative of some function ##f(x,\dot{x})## along the trajectory you have
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} f[x(t),\dot{x}(t)]=\frac{\mathrm{d} x(t)}{\mathrm{d} t} \left (\frac{\partial f(x,\dot{x})}{\partial x} \right)_{x=x(t),\dot{x}(t)} + \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 x(t)}{\mathrm{d} t^2} \left (\frac{\partial f(x,\dot{x})}{\partial \dot{x}} \right)_{x=x(t),\dot{x}=\dot{x}(t)}.$$
Being lazy, for this the physicists simply write
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} f=\dot{x} \partial_x f + \ddot{x} \partial_{\dot{x}} f.$$
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #5
PeroK said:
The idea of Lagrangian mechanics is to analyse the functional form of the system. In the simplest case we have: $$L(x, \dot x) = \frac 1 2 m \dot x^2 - V(x)$$ That is a well-defined function of two variables. For the time being we ignore that those variables will turn out to be related along a specific trajectory.

The Euler-Lagrange equations are generated using this functional approach and minimising the action. All the time treating the Lagrangian as nothing more than a function of two independent variables.

The trick is that this approach leads to equations of motion that are satisfied by the system. There's always a point at which you switch from looking at the system in a generalised functional form, to one where you are looking at a specific trajectory.
How can I assume an independence already knowing that they are dependent. It looks like some sort of cheating the math.
 
  • #6
vanhees71 said:
The problem is partially the physicists sloppy notation. On the one hand they denote with ##x## and ##\dot{x}## simply two independent variables of the Langrange function,
$$(x,\dot{x}) \mapsto L(x,\dot{x}).$$
Then you can take partial derivatives of this function wrt. these independent variables, i.e.,
$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}$$
is the derivative of ##L## with respect to ##x## with ##\dot{x}## kept constant and
$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}$$
is the derivative of ##L## wrt. ##\dot{x}## with ##x## kept constant.

On the other hand you define the action functional, maps a trajectory in configuration space ##t \mapsto x(t)## with time as the parameter of this trajectory:
$$S[x]=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t L[x(t),\dot{x}(t)],$$
where now
$$\dot{x}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{\mathrm{d} t}.$$
If you now want to take the total time derivative of some function ##f(x,\dot{x})## along the trajectory you have
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} f[x(t),\dot{x}(t)]=\frac{\mathrm{d} x(t)}{\mathrm{d} t} \left (\frac{\partial f(x,\dot{x})}{\partial x} \right)_{x=x(t),\dot{x}(t)} + \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 x(t)}{\mathrm{d} t^2} \left (\frac{\partial f(x,\dot{x})}{\partial \dot{x}} \right)_{x=x(t),\dot{x}=\dot{x}(t)}.$$
Being lazy, for this the physicists simply write
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} f=\dot{x} \partial_x f + \ddot{x} \partial_{\dot{x}} f.$$
I'm sorry but I don't understand how it answers my doubt. :(
 
  • #7
Take a particle on a plane (x,y). You can provide the particle with arbitrary initial position coordinates and arbitrary initial velocities ##x,y,\dot x, \dot y##. The independence is understood in this way.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Kashmir said:
How can I assume an independence already knowing that they are dependent. It looks like some sort of cheating the math.
It's not cheating, it's using a clever mathematical idea. There's nothing to stop you calculating the numeric value of $$L(x, \dot x) = \frac 1 2 m \dot x^2 - V(x)$$ for any values of ##x, \dot x##. And there's nothing to stop you plotting the surface in 3D for all values in the ##x, \dot x## plane. And, there's nothing to stop you analysing that surface mathematically. And, there's noting to stop you minimising the action integral for paths on that surface. And, there's nothing to stop you showing that those paths satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equations.

Those paths might have nothing to do with physics. But, those paths (found by mathematically analysing the Lagrangian and solving the E-L equations) turn out to be precisely the paths determined by Newton's laws (and this can be proved).

So, that gives us two ways to determine the motion of the system:

1) Use Newton's laws of motion directly.

2) Find paths on the surface defined by the Lagrangain that satisfy the E-L equations.

And, it can be proved that these two are indeed equivalent.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #9
Kashmir said:
How can I assume an independence already knowing that they are dependent. It looks like some sort of cheating the math.
The trick is to realize that ##x## and ##\dot{x}## are coordinates on a plane where you've defined a displacement-versus-velocity graph. In principle, a thing can be anywhere on that plane: it can be 10m to the left doing 30m/s or -100m/s. You don't know what the relationship between position and velocity is at this point - you haven't worked it out. The Lagrangian defines a function on that plane and the Euler-Lagrange equations give you a way to find the route across the plane that extremises its integral. That's what defines the relationship between the specific values of ##x## and ##\dot{x}## that form the trajectory of the object across your displacement-velocity graph.

On a standard Euclidean plane ##x## and ##y## coordinates can take any value. It's only once you've got a path specified by a relationship like ##y=t^2,x=t## that you have a dependency - Euler-Lagrange is a way of discovering physically interestibg dependencies.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #10
Kashmir said:
A system has some holonomic constraints. Using them we can have a set of coordinates ##{q_i}##. Since any values for these coordinates is possible we say that these are independent coordinates.

However the system will trace a path in the configuration space ,which means that actually all our independent coordinates are in fact dependent.

Why do we then say that we have independent coordinates?

In this context, "independent" means that they are not related to each other via a constraint.

Take for example a particle that is constrained to move on the surface of a sphere. You can take the polar and azimuthal angles as generalized coordinates.

Moving on the surface of a sphere creates no relation between the angles, they are, thus, said to be independent. This has nothing to do with the dynamics (Lagrangian).
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK

Related to Independent coordinates are dependent

What does it mean when independent coordinates are dependent?

When independent coordinates are dependent, it means that one coordinate can be determined or predicted based on the values of the other coordinates. In other words, the value of one coordinate is not truly independent and is influenced by the values of the other coordinates.

Why is it important to understand the concept of dependent independent coordinates?

Understanding the concept of dependent independent coordinates is important in many scientific fields, such as physics, chemistry, and biology. It allows scientists to accurately model and predict the behavior of complex systems, and to identify and study relationships between different variables.

What are some examples of dependent independent coordinates?

One example of dependent independent coordinates is the position and velocity of an object in motion. The velocity of the object is dependent on its position, as it determines the rate at which the object is changing its position. Other examples include temperature and pressure in a gas, or pH and concentration in a chemical reaction.

How can the dependence of independent coordinates be mathematically represented?

The dependence of independent coordinates can be represented using mathematical equations, such as linear or nonlinear regression models. These models can help determine the strength and direction of the relationship between the coordinates, and can be used to make predictions or analyze data.

What are some potential sources of error when dealing with dependent independent coordinates?

Some potential sources of error when dealing with dependent independent coordinates include measurement errors, sampling bias, and confounding variables. It is important for scientists to account for these potential errors when conducting experiments or analyzing data to ensure accurate and reliable results.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
502
Replies
2
Views
245
Replies
5
Views
917
Replies
4
Views
904
Replies
6
Views
605
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
541
Replies
2
Views
688
  • Mechanics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top