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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top