I Virtual displacement is not consistent with constraints

AI Thread Summary
Goldstein's 3rd edition has been criticized for its treatment of nonholonomic constraints, particularly regarding the consistency of virtual displacements with these constraints. The discussion highlights that while virtual displacements are defined as infinitesimal changes consistent with forces and constraints, they may not align with nonholonomic constraints at a given instant. The authors of the 3rd edition have acknowledged errors and retracted their flawed treatment online. Further clarification is provided by additional articles that confirm virtual displacements can contradict nonholonomic constraints, necessitating the use of Lagrange multipliers. Overall, the consensus is that the 2nd edition of Goldstein is preferable for accurate treatment of these concepts.
Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
Goldstein 3rd ed says

"First consider holonomic constraints. When we derive Lagrange's equation from either Hamilton's or D'Alembert's principle, the holonomic constraint appear in the last step when the variations in the ##q_i## were considered independent of each other. However, the virtual displacements in the ##\delta q_{I}##'s may not be consistent with constraints. If there are ##n## variables and ##m## constraint equations ##f_\alpha## of the form Eq. (1.37), the extra virtual displacements are eliminated by the method of Lagrange undetermined multipliers.

I do not understand the parts that the virtual displacements may be inconsistent with constraints because earlier on in the book he defines virtual displacement as the infinitesimal change of the coordinates *consistent with the forces and constraints imposed on the system at the given instant ##t##* (pg 16).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Goldstein's 3rd edition is utterly flawed in the issue of nonholonomic constraints. Rather read the 2nd edition, which is correct! It's an example for a very good textbook ruined by people (obviously not by the original autor) who think they have to modernize it ;-)).

You precisely nailed the error in your last paragraph. Indeed the nonholonomic constraints are constraints on the virtual displacements (no matter whether you use the d'Alembert or the action principle, and it's at the given instant of time, and time is not to be varied).

For more details clarifying the issues with Goldstein's 3rd edition, see

https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1830501

As you can read there, in the meantime the authors of Goldstein's 3rd edition have retracted their errorneous treatment on a webpage:

http://astro.physics.sc.edu/Goldstein/
 
Last edited:
vanhees71 said:
Goldstein's 3rd edition is utterly flawed in the issue of nonholonomic constraints. Rather read the 2nd edition, which is correct! It's an example for a very good textbook ruined by people (obviously not by the original autor) who think they have to modernize it ;-)).

You precisely nailed the error in your last paragraph. Indeed the nonholonomic constraints are constraints on the virtual displacements (no matter whether you use the d'Alembert or the action principle, and it's at the given instant of time, and time is not to be varied).

For more details clarifying the issues with Goldstein's 3rd edition, see

https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1830501

As you can read there, in the meantime the authors of Goldstein's 3rd edition have retracted their errorneous treatment on a webpage:

http://astro.physics.sc.edu/Goldstein/
Thank you so much. I couldn't read the article in the journal and saw the errata. Could you please tell me are the virtual displacements consistent with the non holonomic constraints?
I found yet another article on arxiv that says that the virtual displacements can be in contrast with the constraints in non holonomic case. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0RLIZuNZW0fswKBeqKr0o7
 
As far as I can see from glancing over the paper, there the statement about anholonomic constraints is correct (Fig. 1). It's a constraint on the "allowed" virtual displacements, which must be implemented by using Lagrange multipliers for the constraints in the form in the lower right corner of Fig. 1 to get the same correct equations of motion from Hamilton's principle in Lagrangian form as you get from d'Alembert's principle.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top