Verifying that the Euler-Lagrange equation uses generalized coordinates

Saketh
Messages
258
Reaction score
2
This is a question that I'm asking myself for my own understanding, not a homework question.

I realize that in most derivations of the Euler-Lagrange equations the coordinate system is assumed to be general. However, just to make sure, I want to apply the "brute force" method (as Shankar calls it) to verify that the Euler-Lagrange equations indeed use generalized coordinates.

So, here's the problem. Given the Euler-Lagrange equations in a Cartesian coordinate system x_1, x_2, ... x_n, show, by change of variables, that the equations retain the same form under a coordinate transformation.

<br /> \frac{d}{dt} \left (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x_i}} \right ) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial x_i}<br />

I have no idea how to go about transforming coordinates. I created a coordinate system q_i which could be written in terms of the x_i, but I wasn't sure how to use brute force methods to verify that the E-L equations use generalized coordinates. If someone could show me how to do it, I would appreciate it greatly.

Thanks for helping me understand this!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/fys/FYS3120/v05/undervisningsmateriale/Symmetry.pdf may be useful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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