Lagrange multipliers in Lagrangian Mechanics

In summary, Lagrange multipliers relate the magnitude of the normal force on a block as it slides down an incline to the gradient of the constraint function.
  • #1
Gavroy
235
0
Hi

we covered the Lagrange multiplier method in Lagrangian Mechanics and as far as I know, is the physical meaning behind this to be able to solve either some non-holonomic constraints or to get some information about the constraint forces. my problem is, i do not know the physical meaning of those multipliers. what are they telling me and how are they related to the constraint forces?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How comfortable are you with vector calculus? You can visualize Lagrange Multipliers by realizing the constraint is a curve on your surface, and finding where the gradient vectors are parallel to each other finds either the minimum or maximum of your system of equations. Here is a good interactive visualization: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheGeometryOfLagrangeMultipliers/
 
  • #3
The Lagrange multiplier by itself has no physical meaning: it can be transformed into a new function of time just by rewriting the constraint equation into something physically equivalent. For example, the constraints ##G(x,y) = 0## for ##G(x,y) = x^2 - y^2## or ##G(x,y) = 2x^2 - 2y^2## are physically equivalent but lead to different multiplier functions when used to the modify the system's Lagrangian. It's like how the electric and magnetic potentials can be gauge transformed in electromagnetism without changing the physics. The physical interpretation as being related to the force required to constrain the motion (for holonomic constraints) only comes when the multiplier is combined with the particular constraining function chosen: ##\vec{F(t)} = -\lambda(t) \frac{\partial G}{\partial \vec{x}}##. Neither ##\lambda## nor ##G## by itself is physical; only their combination.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Gavroy said:
i do not know the physical meaning of those multipliers. what are they telling me and how are they related to the constraint forces?

The numerical values of the lagrange multipliers ARE the cnstraint forces.

Set up a simple system where you know the answer (e.g. a 3 DOF system of two springs joined together), use LM's to apply some constraints to it (e.g apply a displacement of 1 at one end a displacement of 2 at the other end, and a force on the DOF in the middle) and work it by hand to see what you get.
 
  • #5
AlephZero said:
The numerical values of the lagrange multipliers ARE the cnstraint forces.

This is incorrect. The Lagrange multiplier needs to be combined with the gradient of the constraining function to get the constraint forces. The numerical value of the of the multiplier by itself is not physical, as I've discussed above.
 
  • #6
Hi Gavroy. Maybe a simple example will help you so consider the case of a block sliding down a fixed frictionless incline of angle ##\theta##. Obviously, the easiest approaches to this would be to either just write down Newton's 2nd law in a convenient coordinate system or to use the generalized coordinate ##q## representing the distance traveled along the incline by the block and just writing down Lagrange's equations. For the second method, the choice of generalized coordinate ##q## will implicitly take into account the constraint which is that the block must stay on the incline during the trajectory before reaching the ground. However, let's do this using the method of Lagrange multipliers.

Using ##x## for the horizontal coordinate and ##y## for the vertical coordinate, we can write out Lagrangian as ##L = \frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^{2} + \frac{1}{2}m\dot{y}^{2} + mgy## but note that ##x,y## are not independent. They are related by the holonomic constraint ##g(x,y) = y - x\tan\theta = 0##. Letting ##L' = L - \lambda g## we simply write down Lagrange's equations as ##\frac{\partial L'}{\partial x^{\alpha}} - \frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} t}\frac{\partial L'}{\partial \dot{x}^{\alpha}} = 0##. Doing this and combining with the constraint (this is important!) gives us ##m\ddot{x} = \lambda \tan\theta## and ##\lambda\cot\theta = mg\cot\theta - m\ddot{x}## so adding these two gives us ##\lambda\sec^{2}\theta = mg\Rightarrow \lambda = (mg\cos\theta)\cos\theta## . As we know, ##N = mg\cos\theta## is the magnitude of the normal force on the block from the incline so ##\lambda## is the magnitude of the vertical component of the normal force and ##\lambda\tan\theta = (mg\cos\theta)\sin\theta = m\ddot{x}## is the magnitude of the horizontal component of the normal force, as expected.

As you can see this is more work than simply choosing the generalized coordinate ##q## as the distance traveled along the incline, which implicitly takes the constraint into account and deals with a much nicer coordinate system for this problem.

As far as the mathematical nature of lagrange multipliers goes, for holonomic constraints it is very easy to understand in terms of constraint submanifolds of the configuration space and the implicit function theorem. For non-holonomic systems, there are subtleties involved that go into Frobenius' theorem and the tangent bundle of the configuration space but if you want I can direct you to books / resources for these matters.
 
  • #7
By the way, just to drive home LastOne's point, note that for the above example we have ##\lambda \nabla g = mg\cos\theta[-\sin\theta \hat{x} + \cos\theta\hat{y}]##. If I were to instead write down my constraint as ##g(x,y) = y\cos\theta - x\sin\theta = 0## (using the same coordinate system), which is physically the exact same constraint, I would get a different value for ##\lambda##. In particular, I would get ##\lambda = mg\cos\theta## but note that ##\lambda \nabla g = mg\cos\theta[-\sin\theta \hat{x} + \cos\theta\hat{y}]## still holds. In general, if I want to have an unambiguous interpretation of the constraint forces in terms of the Lagrange multipliers, then this would be needed.

Also, just to put the expression in a more recognizable form, rotate the coordinate system clockwise by ##\theta## to get ##\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\theta & \sin\theta\\
-\sin\theta&\cos\theta
\end{pmatrix}\lambda \nabla g = mg\cos\theta\hat{y}'##. This is of course the expression for the normal force if you wrote down Newton's 2nd law in the coordinate system where the horizontal axis is along the incline and the vertical axis is perpendicular to the incline.
 

Related to Lagrange multipliers in Lagrangian Mechanics

1. What are Lagrange multipliers?

Lagrange multipliers are mathematical coefficients used in Lagrangian mechanics to find the extrema (maximum or minimum) of a function subject to constraints.

2. How are Lagrange multipliers used in Lagrangian mechanics?

In Lagrangian mechanics, Lagrange multipliers are used to incorporate constraints into the equations of motion. They help to find the optimal values of the generalized coordinates that satisfy the constraints and give the extremum of the Lagrangian function.

3. What is the role of Lagrange multipliers in constrained optimization?

In constrained optimization, Lagrange multipliers serve as a way to convert the constrained optimization problem into an unconstrained one. They help to incorporate the constraints into the objective function and find the optimal solution.

4. How do Lagrange multipliers relate to the principle of virtual work?

The principle of virtual work states that the virtual work done by the applied forces and the constraint forces must be equal to zero for a system in equilibrium. Lagrange multipliers are used to enforce this principle by incorporating the constraints into the equations of motion.

5. Can Lagrange multipliers be used for non-conservative systems?

Yes, Lagrange multipliers can be used for both conservative and non-conservative systems. They are a powerful tool for finding the extremum of a function subject to constraints and can be applied to a wide range of problems in physics and engineering.

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
898
Replies
2
Views
223
Replies
3
Views
979
  • Classical Physics
Replies
17
Views
873
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
838
Replies
20
Views
8K
Back
Top