1

I editted this question since it was closed because it is a duplicate. However, answers in the referenced question didn't solve my question, so I am writing it again.

Lagrangian mechanics is built upon calculus of variation. This means that we want to find out function which is a stationary point of particular function (functional) which in Lagrangian mechanics is called the action.

To know what this function is, action needs to be defined first. Action is defined via integral.

In problems which use calculus of variation ,such as brachistochrone problem, caternary problem or finding path of least distance between two points, appropriate integral is the integral between two points of question of appropriate variable (time, potential energy, distance etc.), that is the integral of variable which is usually needed to be minimized in the problem.

When integral is defined, function is known and with Euler - Lagrange equation we get the solution to the problem. For example that can be function which defines path of least time, distance or shape of the rope as a solution of caternary problem.

What I don't understand is how to define this integral in context of Lagrangian mechanics or in context of action? In another words, how was it found out that difference in kinetic and potential energy of the system gives correct equations of motion when plugged in Euler - Lagrange equation?

  • This PBS Spacetime episode explains it. Basically, it was an educated guess that Euler made based on process of elimination of other properties. – moboDawn_φ Jan 13 '22 at 15:33
  • Possible duplicates: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/78138/2451 , https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/86008/2451 , https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/117017/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Jan 13 '22 at 16:18
  • First: historical note: the concept of action as used today was introduced by William Rowan Hamilton in 1834. Joseph-Louis Lagrange used d'Alembert's virtual work to state the relation between potential and kinetic energy. The mechanics developed by Lagrange did not use calculus of variations, and if Hamilton's action would not have been introduced then Lagrangian mechanics would be just as powerful and expressive as it is today. See also: demonstration that in cases where the Work-Energy theorem holds good Hamilton's action holds good too – Cleonis Jan 13 '22 at 17:10
  • @moboDawn_φ About that episode of PBS spacetime: Matt O'Dowd asserts that Fermat's least time is a specific instance of a more general principle, which Matt O'Dowd refers to as: "Principle of least proper time" Matt O'Dowd asserts that among all paths between two point in spacetime: motion along a geodesic is the path of least proper time. The problem: Matt O'Dowd has it backwards: in actual fact motion along a geodesic maximizes proper time. The error is not repairable; Matt O'Dowd should have scrapped that video and started over. – Cleonis Jan 13 '22 at 19:36
  • If you'd like this question to be re-opened, it would be best if you edited your question to how the linked question is different from what you're trying to ask here. It does seem to me that like the duplicate question is pretty similar to your own. – Michael Seifert Jan 13 '22 at 20:35
  • @Michael Seifert Yes, they are basically the same. However, as I said, answers on that question don't answer what I don't understand. – Dario Mirić Jan 13 '22 at 22:53
  • You can see also https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/632010/195949 – Claudio Saspinski Jan 14 '22 at 00:06
  • In that case, it would be best if you articulate what aspect of the problem you don't understand. This isn't always easy to do, of course, but it's essential if you want to get an answer that helps you. If you can articular what differentiates this question and that other one, then this question can be re-opened. – Michael Seifert Jan 14 '22 at 14:09

0 Answers0