Is the Lagrangian a Function of Only Generalized Coordinates and Speed?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pardesi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Lagrangian
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Lagrangian is fundamentally a function of generalized coordinates \( q \) and generalized speed \( \dot{q} \), rather than generalized acceleration \( \ddot{q} \). While it is commonly assumed that the Lagrangian does not depend on \( \ddot{q} \), this independence cannot be universally proven. The discussion highlights that if a Lagrangian \( \mathcal{L}(q, \dot{q}, \ddot{q}) \) does include \( \ddot{q} \), a modified Euler-Lagrange equation emerges, indicating a need for careful consideration of the independence of these variables.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with generalized coordinates and speeds
  • Knowledge of the Euler-Lagrange equations
  • Basic calculus, particularly integration by parts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations in detail
  • Explore Lagrangian formulations that include higher derivatives
  • Investigate constraints in Lagrangian mechanics
  • Learn about variational principles in classical mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on classical mechanics, theoretical physicists, and anyone interested in advanced dynamics and the formulation of physical laws.

pardesi
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
Hmm how does one prove that a lagrangian is a function of just the generalized coordinates and the generalized speed and not the generalized "Accelaration"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general, one assumes that it does not depend on [itex]\ddot q_i[/itex] (with [itex]q_i[/itex] the generalized coordinates) because in most systems, it doesn't. But one cannot prove this independence, and indeed one can derive the Euler-Lagrange equations for a Lagrangian with does depend on them in the same way as usual.

One should check, however, that the "acceleration" is really independent, otherwise one cannot consider [itex]q[/itex] and [itex]\ddot q[/itex] as independent coordinates and one would have to impose a constraint (e.g. the original Euler-Lagrange equation for the Lagrangian which does not depend on the acceleration).

But in principle, I think this argument works:
Suppose we have a Lagrangian [itex]\mathcal L(q, \dot q, \ddot q)[/itex]. Then a variation of the action gives
[itex]\delta\left( \int \mathcal L \, \mathrm dt \right) = \int \left( \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial q} \delta q + \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \dot q} \delta \dot q + \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \ddot q} \delta \ddot q \right) \, \mathrm dt.[/itex]
Using that [itex]\delta\dot q = \frac{d(\delta q)}{dt}[/itex], etc. we get by partial integration (once on the second term, twice on the third term)
[itex]\delta\left( \int \mathcal L \, \mathrm dt \right) = \int \left( \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial q} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \dot q} + \frac{d^2}{dt^2} \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \ddot q} \right) \delta q \, \mathrm dt[/itex]
assuming that all the boundary terms from the partial integrations vanish. Now for this to vanish for arbitrary variations (under these conditions), the bracketed term must be zero and we find a new "Euler-Lagrange equation",
[tex]\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial q} + \frac{d^2}{dt^2} \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \ddot q} = \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \dot q}[/tex]
 
thanks!
hmm you i cud smell that but just wanted to confirm if i was missing out something
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K