Lagrangian and principle of least action

AI Thread Summary
The integral of the Lagrangian must be stationary according to Hamilton's principle, leading to the Euler-Lagrange equations for each coordinate pair. While the Lagrangian can work with holonomic constraints by treating displacements independently, the introduction of Lagrange multipliers extends the principle to accommodate both holonomic and non-holonomic constraints. This approach allows for a more general formulation of the equations of motion, explicitly incorporating constraints into the system. The use of multipliers simplifies the process of solving equations of motion under constraints. Overall, Lagrangian multipliers enhance the versatility of the Lagrangian framework in mechanics.
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 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top