Lagrangian and principle of least action

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
So the integral of the lagrangian over time must be stationary according to hamiltons principle.

One can show that this leads to the euler lagrange equations, one for each pair of coordinates (qi,qi').

But my book has now started on defining a generalized lagrangian where lagrangian multipliers are used to somehow extend the principle to holonomic constraint f(q1,...,qn) = 0.
My question is: Did the lagrangian not already work for holonomic constraints, if you took the displacements of the qi's to be independent? I should think so, so why is it that they want to start with these multipliers - are they trying to extend the lagrangian to work for systems in which you can use arbitrary displacements of the coordinates qi?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the lagrangian can already work for holonomic constraints if you take the displacements of the qi's to be independent. However, the use of lagrangian multipliers allows for a more general formulation of the principle and can be used to account for non-holonomic constraints as well. The multipliers allow for the constraints to be explicitly taken into account in the equations of motion, making them easier to solve.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top