Lagrange's Equation Generalized Coordinates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of generalized coordinates in Lagrange's equations, particularly focusing on the requirements for arbitrary coordinate systems in classical mechanics. Participants explore the implications of these requirements and the advantages of using non-Cartesian coordinates in various problem contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that generalized coordinates simplify problem-solving, especially in cases with rotational symmetry, as seen with spherical coordinates.
  • Others argue that generalized coordinates can incorporate constraints of a system, allowing for a more straightforward representation without additional methods like undetermined multipliers.
  • A participant notes that a unique mapping of coordinates to points in space is not always necessary, as shown in cylindrical coordinates where multiple coordinate sets can describe the same point.
  • One participant seeks clarification on the specific mathematical conditions required for arbitrary coordinate systems, emphasizing the need for a one-to-one mapping.
  • Another participant attempts to clarify the mapping functions between position vectors and generalized coordinates, suggesting that these mappings can be understood through composition functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the utility of generalized coordinates but express differing views on the necessity and implications of the specific mathematical conditions for these coordinates. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact reasoning behind these requirements.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention singularities and the limitations of certain coordinate systems, indicating that these aspects may complicate the application of generalized coordinates. However, these issues are not fully resolved within the discussion.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I am currently reading about the topic alluded to in the topic of this thread. In Taylor's Classical Mechanics, the author appears to be making a requirement about any arbitrary coordinate system you employ in solving some particular problem. He says,

"Instead of the Cartesian coordinates r = (x,y,z), suppose that we wish to use some other coordinates. These could be spherical polar coordinates [itex](r, \theta, \phi)[/itex], r cylindrical coordinates [itex]\rho , \phi , z)[/itex], or any set of "generalized coordinates" q1, q2, q3, i the property that each position specifies a unique value of (q1, q2, q3); that is,

[itex]q_i = q_i(\vec{r})[/itex] for [itex]i = 1,2~and~3[/itex],

[itex]\vec{r}=\vec{r}(q_1,q_2,q_3)[/itex]

I understand that [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] is our position vector function, and that requiring coordinates (q1, q2, 3) in our arbitrary coordinate system to be able to be represented by a position vector makes sense, although I wouldn't mind someone telling me the exact reason we require this. Again, it also makes sense that we would require (q1, q2, q3) and the position vector function representing that point to specify one unique point--if this weren't true, then a particle could occupy to positions at the same time, although I wouldn't mind someone telling me the exact reason we require this. But I don't understand the requirement [itex]q_i = q_i(\vec{r})[/itex], what does this mathematical statement mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason for introducing non-cartesian "generalized coordinates" is that sometimes a problem is way easier to solve in such coordinates than in cartesian ones. E.g., if there is rotation symmetry around a given point, it's advantageous to introduce spherical coordinates.

Usually one has only the one-to-one mapping of a part of the Eucildean space. E.g., standard spherical coordinates, which are related to the cartesian coordinates via
[tex]x=r \cos \vartheta \cos \varphi, y=\quad r \cos \vartheta \sin \varphi, \quad z=r \sin \vartheta,[/tex]
have a singularity along the [itex]z[/itex] axis (i.e., the polar axis of the spherical coordinates). The ranges for the generalized coordinates are in this case [itex]r>0, \quad \vartheta \in (0,\pi), \quad \varphi \in [0,2 \pi)[/itex].
 
One other reason for using generalized coordinates is that if there are some constraints in the system (e.g. a particle is constrained to move on a certain surface), these constraints can be "built-in" implicitly in the coordinate system you choose to use, instead of introducing them with the method of undetermined multipliers.

Strictly speaking, a given point in space does not have to correspond to a unique set of coordinates, for example in cylindrical coordinates the points ##(r,\theta,z)## and ##(r,\theta + 2\pi,z)## describe the same point in space.
 
I am not sure either of you have answered my question. I understand why we employ coordinate systems other than the cartesian (rectangular). What I would like to understand better is the reason for the two conditions we must place upon any arbitrary coordinate system.
 
Last edited:
Well it basically says that you have a one-to-one map between the systems. Those 2 statements together that is.
As you can see clearly by noting that the composition of the function [itex]q_i[/itex] and [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] on the right hand side of your equations results in the identity map.

I'm going to use a little different notation now. You have the function [itex]q_i(\vec{r})[/itex]. But the coordinate has the same name. Let's name this function that maps the vector r to the coordinates [itex]q_i[/itex], [itex]f_i:\vec{r}\rightarrow q_i[/itex].
Now the same reasoning holds for the vector r as a function of the [itex]q_i[/itex]. The vector function [itex]\vec{g}\equiv\vec{r}:(q_1,q_2,q_3)\rightarrow \vec{r}[/itex].

Can you see that a generalised vector function [itex]F(\vec{r}) :\vec{r}\rightarrow(q_1,q_2,q_3)[/itex] bundles all these expressions together. What happens if you take a look at the composition of F and g? Do you see what the constraints on the transformations mean now?

Also look at the comment by vanhees. Although those singularities, indefinite values are mostly ignored as far as I know.* I hope this is a little bit clear, sometimes I'm having trouble writing this stuff down in a comprehensible way.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K