Use of Lagrange's equations in classical mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Lagrange's multipliers in classical mechanics, particularly in variational calculus versus finite-dimensional vector spaces. Participants express confusion over the relevance of Lagrange's multipliers when seeking functions that extremize integrals, rather than points that yield extremum values. It is noted that the method remains applicable in infinite-dimensional function spaces, with a heuristic argument provided for understanding the discretization of integrals. The conversation also critiques the treatment of non-holonomic constraints in Goldstein's text, suggesting it may be flawed. Overall, the participants seek clarity on the proper application and understanding of these concepts in classical mechanics.
PrathameshR
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
I have been studying classical mechanics for a while from Goldstein book and can't go ahead of the following derivation. I understand the method of Lagrange's multipliers for getting extrima of a function subjected to equality constraints but can't understand it's relevance here because in that method we find "points" which give extremum value but here we want to find "function" which extrimizes a perticular integral.
20170913_195431-1.jpeg

In the 4rth line of 2nd paragraph it says that delta a 'subscript I ' may not be consistent with contraints , how is that possible?

In the title I ment use of Lagrange's "multipliers"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Skip this chapter from Goldstein, at least if it comes to non-holonomous constraints since this is awfully flawed. Otherwise the idea of Lagrange multipliers is precisely the same in variational calculus (finding stationary points of functionals) as in finding stationary points of functions under constraints.
 
vanhees71 said:
Skip this chapter from Goldstein, at least if it comes to non-holonomous constraints since this is awfully flawed. Otherwise the idea of Lagrange multipliers is precisely the same in variational calculus (finding stationary points of functionals) as in finding stationary points of functions under constraints.
Can you suggest any good place where I can read a proper treatment of this topic?
 
It's in Landau&Lifshitz vol. I.
 
PrathameshR said:
but can't understand it's relevance here because in that method we find "points" which give extremum value but here we want to find "function" which extrimizes a perticular integral.
As @vanhees71 mentioned, it is just the same idea. In fact, the only difference is that your function space is infinite-dimensional whereas you have likely only seen the Lagrange multiplier method applied to finite-dimensional vector spaces before. As a heuristic argument, consider a discretisation of your integral
$$
\mathcal F = \int f(\phi(x),\phi'(x)) dx \to \Delta x \sum_{i = 1}^N f(\phi(x_i),[\phi(x_{i+1})-\phi(x_i)]/\Delta x) \equiv F(\vec \phi)
$$
where ##F## is some function of the function values ##\phi_i = \phi(x_i)##. Now think of the ##\phi_i## as the coordinates in ##\mathbb R^N##. It is rather easy to convince yourself that the partial derivative ##\partial F/\partial\phi_i## is just the discretisation of the functional derivative ##\delta \mathcal F/\delta\phi(x_i)## at ##x_i##. Furthermore, you therefore also have that the discretisation of the variation
$$
\delta \mathcal F = \int \frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi(x)} \delta\phi(x) dx
$$
is on the form
$$
\Delta x \sum_i \delta\phi_i \frac{\partial F}{\partial\phi_i} \propto \delta\vec \phi \cdot \nabla F,
$$
where ##\nabla## is the gradient in the space with coordinates ##\phi_i## and ##\delta\vec \phi## is a variation in that space.

If you are considering a vector space of functions, the entire argument for the Lagrange multiplier method that is used in a finite-dimensional vector space goes through without modification to the function space.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top