Two equations of generalized forces

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and definitions of generalized forces in the context of monogenic systems, exploring the relationship between different formulations of these forces and their implications in mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the derivation of one equation of generalized forces from another for monogenic systems.
  • Definitions of the force ##F_i## in the context of generalized forces are questioned and clarified.
  • One participant asserts that there are mechanical systems where the generalized force can be expressed in terms of a velocity-dependent potential, leading to a specific form of Lagrange's equation.
  • Another participant expresses confusion regarding the apparent contradiction between the general definition of generalized forces and the specific form for monogenic systems.
  • Some participants agree that in certain special cases, the generalized force takes a specific form, but they do not provide a definitive proof for the equivalence of the two formulations.
  • Examples, such as the Lorentz force, are provided to illustrate specific cases where the generalized force can be derived from a velocity-dependent potential.
  • A formula for a rigid body is introduced, relating net force and torque to generalized forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and derivations of generalized forces, with no consensus reached on the equivalence of the general and specific forms for monogenic systems. Some participants agree on certain aspects, but the overall discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of generalized forces and the conditions under which the specific forms apply. The mathematical steps leading to the equivalence of the two formulations are not fully resolved.

Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
Wikipedia article under generalized forces says
1632051390268.png

Also we know that the generalized forces are defined as
1632051425906.png
How can I derive the first equation from the second for a monogenic system ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the definition of Fi in the second equation?
 
dextercioby said:
What is the definition of Fi in the second equation?
##F_i## is the force on the ith particle
 
You have it the wrong way around! There are some mechanical systems for which ##Q_j## can be written in the form ##Q_j = \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial \dot{q}^j} - \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial q^j}##, where ##U## is called a velocity dependent potential.

[for example, the Lorentz force is derivable from the velocity dependent potential ##U = q\phi - q \dot{\mathbf{r}}\cdot \mathbf{A}##]

If this is the case, then it follows that Lagrange's equation ## \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}^j} - \dfrac{\partial T}{\partial q^j} = Q_j## can be written in Lagrangian form by taking ##L(q,\dot{q},t) = T(q,\dot{q},t) - U(q,\dot{q},t)##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
ergospherical said:
You have it the wrong way around! There are some mechanical systems for which ##Q_j## can be written in the form ##Q_j = \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial \dot{q}^j} - \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial q^j}##, where ##U## is called a velocity dependent potential.

[for example, the Lorentz force is derivable from the velocity dependent potential ##U = q\phi - q \dot{\mathbf{r}}\cdot \mathbf{A}##]

If this is the case, then it follows that Lagrange's equation ## \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}^j} - \dfrac{\partial T}{\partial q^j} = Q_j## can be written in Lagrangian form by taking ##L(q,\dot{q},t) = T(q,\dot{q},t) - U(q,\dot{q},t)##.
ergospherical said:
You have it the wrong way around! There are some mechanical systems for which ##Q_j## can be written in the form ##Q_j = \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial \dot{q}^j} - \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial q^j}##, where ##U## is called a velocity dependent potential.

[for example, the Lorentz force is derivable from the velocity dependent potential ##U = q\phi - q \dot{\mathbf{r}}\cdot \mathbf{A}##]

If this is the case, then it follows that Lagrange's equation ## \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}^j} - \dfrac{\partial T}{\partial q^j} = Q_j## can be written in Lagrangian form by taking ##L(q,\dot{q},t) = T(q,\dot{q},t) - U(q,\dot{q},t)##.
Thank you for your reply but Why have I it the wrong way around ?
You also seem to say the same thing which I'm saying.

In all cases isn't the generalized force ##Q_{j}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{F}_{i} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_{i}}{\partial q_{j}}## and for some situations (monogenic) it reduces to ##\mathcal{F}_{i}=-\frac{\partial \mathcal{V}}{\partial q_{i}}+\frac{d}{d t}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{V}}{\partial \dot{q}_{i}}\right)## which I can't prove how.
Please tell me what I'm doing wrong. I don't have a teacher.
God bless you
 
that’s correct. in some (special) cases the generalised force takes that second form. there’s nothing to prove!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kashmir
ergospherical said:
that’s correct. in some (special) cases the generalised force takes that second form. there’s nothing to prove!
Maybe I'm not clear.
Do you agree that we have defined generalized forces In all cases as ##Q_{j}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{F}_{i} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_{i}}{\partial q_{j}}## .

If that's true then the definition of generalized forces for monogenic systems is the same.
But it's said that the generalized force in the monogenic system is different given as ##\mathcal{F}_{i}=-\frac{\partial \mathcal{V}}{\partial q_{i}}+\frac{d}{d t}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{V}}{\partial \dot{q}_{i}}\right)##.

So there is a contradiction. And the only way to resolve it is to prove that they are equivalent for the monogenic case,which I cant.

I hope I'm clear. Thank you again :)
 
ergospherical said:
that’s correct. in some (special) cases the generalised force takes that second form. there’s nothing to prove!
What are those special cases? Under those special cases we should be able to move from ##Q_{j}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{F}_{i} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_{i}}{\partial q_{j}}## to ##\mathcal{F}_{i}=-\frac{\partial \mathcal{V}}{\partial q_{i}}+\frac{d}{d t}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{V}}{\partial \dot{q}_{i}}\right)##
 
e.g. the Lorentz force
for example take the generalised coordinates to be the cartesian coordinates ##\mathbf{r} = (x,y,z)##
and let ##U(\mathbf{r}, \dot{\mathbf{r}}) = q\phi(\mathbf{r}) - q\dot{\mathbf{r}} \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r})## be a velocity dependent potential

then ##\dfrac{\partial U}{\partial x_j} = q\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x_j} - q\dot{x}_i \dfrac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j} ##
and ##\dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial \dot{x}_j} = -q \dfrac{dA_j}{dt}##
therefore\begin{align*}
Q_j = \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial \dot{x}_j} - \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial x_j} &= -q \dfrac{dA_j}{dt} - q\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x_j} + q\dot{x}_i \dfrac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j} \\

&= q \dot{x}_i \left( \dfrac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j} - \dfrac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_i}\right) - q\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x_j}
\end{align*}the first term can be rewritten as\begin{align*}
[\dot{\mathbf{r}} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{A})]_j &= \epsilon_{jkl} \dot{x}_k (\nabla \times \mathbf{A})_l \\
&= \epsilon_{jkl} \dot{x}_k \epsilon_{lmn} \dfrac{\partial A_n}{\partial x_m} \\
&= (\delta_{jm} \delta_{kn} - \delta_{km} \delta_{jn})\dot{x}_k \dfrac{\partial A_n}{\partial x_m} \\
&= \dot{x}_k \left( \dfrac{\partial A_k}{\partial x_j} -\dfrac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_k} \right)
\end{align*}(just replace the dummy index ##k \rightarrow i##), and putting ##\nabla \times \mathbf{A} \equiv \mathbf{B}## as well as ##-\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial \mathbf{r}} \equiv \mathbf{E}## gives\begin{align*}
Q_j = q (\dot{\mathbf{r}} \times \mathbf{B})_j + qE_j
\end{align*}i.e. the Lorentz force

it's easy for this example, in the case of cartesian coordinates, to see that the generalised force is nothing but the actual force ##Q_j = \mathbf{F} \cdot \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial x_j} = \mathbf{F} \cdot \mathbf{e}_j = F_j##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kashmir, dextercioby and vanhees71
  • #10
Let us recall a formula for a rigid body, Assume that the rigid body experiences a net force ##\boldsymbol F## and a torque ##\boldsymbol M_A## about a point ##A##. The point ##A## belongs to the rigid body. Then
$$Q_i=(\boldsymbol F,\frac{\partial \boldsymbol v_A}{\partial \dot q_i})+(\boldsymbol M_A,\frac{\partial \boldsymbol \omega}{\partial \dot q_i})$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K