Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is a follow-up question to D'Alembert's Principle and the term containing the reversed effective force.

From the second term of Eq. (1.45) $$\begin{align*} \sum_i{\dot{\mathbf{p}}_i \cdot \delta{\mathbf{r}_i}} &= \sum_i{m_i\ddot{\mathbf{r}}_i \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j} \delta q_j} \end{align*}$$

Starting from Eq. (1.50), I was able to follow that $$\begin{align*} \sum_i{m_i\ddot{\mathbf{r}}_i \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j}} &= \sum_i{\left[ \frac{d}{dt} \left( m_i\mathbf{v}_i \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{v}_i}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \right) - m_i\mathbf{v}_i \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{v}_i}{\partial q_j} \right]} \end{align*}$$

Goldstein substituted the above equation to (1.45) by saying:

... and the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (1.45) can be expanded to

By "second term", I understood it to be the very first equation I mentioned above. Therefore this is how I understood it:

$$\begin{align*} \sum_i{\dot{\mathbf{p}}_i \cdot \delta{\mathbf{r}_i}} &= \sum_i{m_i\ddot{\mathbf{r}}_i \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j} \delta q_j}\\ &= \sum_i\left[ \frac{d}{dt}\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \left( \frac{1}{2}\sum_i{m_iv_i^2} \right) \right] - \frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} \left( \frac{1}{2}\sum_i{m_iv_i^2} \right) - Q_j \right]\delta q_j\\ &= \sum_i{\left[ \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \right) - \frac{\partial T}{\partial q_j} -Q_j \right] \delta q_j} \end{align*}$$

I was able to follow $$\begin{align*} T &= \sum_i{m_i\mathbf{v}_i} \cdot \partial\mathbf{v}_i\\ T &=\frac{1}{2} \sum_i{m_iv_i^2} \end{align*}$$

But I am at a loss: Where does $-Q_j$ come from?

share|improve this question
    
There is an error in the question formulation (v1): The second equality in the third equation is not correct. –  Qmechanic Jul 17 '11 at 14:11

3 Answers 3

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Similar to Newton's 2nd law, the D'Alembert's principle has both a dynamical and a kinetic term,

$$ \sum_i (\mathbf{F}^{(a)}_i - \dot{\mathbf{p}}_i) \cdot \delta \mathbf{r}_i~=~0. \qquad (1.45) $$

On one hand, the dynamical term

$$\sum_i \mathbf{F}^{(a)}_i \cdot \delta \mathbf{r}_i = \sum_j Q_j \delta q_j \qquad (1.48)$$

contains the generalized force

$$Q_j=\sum_i\mathbf{F}^{(a)}_i\cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j}.\qquad (1.49)$$

On the other hand, the kinetic term

$$\dot{\mathbf{p}}_i \cdot \delta \mathbf{r}_i~=~ \sum_j{\left[ \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \right) - \frac{\partial T}{\partial q_j} \right] \delta q_j} $$

contains the kinetic energy $T =\frac{1}{2} \sum_i{m_iv_i^2}$.

Edit: It is true that the third edition of Goldstein wrongly says

and the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (1.45) can be expanded into $$ \sum_i\left[ \frac{d}{dt}\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \left( \sum_i{\frac{1}{2}m_iv_i^2} \right) \right] - \frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} \left( \sum_i{\frac{1}{2}m_iv_i^2} \right) - Q_j \right]\delta q_j. \qquad $$

The second edition does not have the $-Q_j$ term, so an unfortunate mistake was introduced during the update to the third edition. This is not the first time that I have noticed that the second edition is often more carefully written than the third edition in what concerns old material. (The third edition contains a new chapter 11 about classical chaos.)

share|improve this answer
    
Goldstein isn't wrong. He's multiplied 1.45 by -1 to keep + in front of the $\mathbf{\dot p}_i\cdot\mathbf{\delta r}_i$ –  Larry Harson Jul 19 '11 at 14:46

You've misinterpreted what Goldstein states:

and the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (1.45) can be expanded into

To save confusion for some, it could be better expressed as:

and the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (1.45) can be expanded, so that Eq. (1.45) becomes>

It looks repetitive, so the authors probably stuck with the current form, relying on the understanding of the student to see what is obviously meant. The relevant equations are

$$\sum_i (\mathbf{F}^{(a)}_i - \dot{\mathbf{p}}_i) \cdot \delta \mathbf{r}_i~=~0. \qquad (1.45)$$

$$\sum_i{\mathbf{F}_i \cdot \delta{\mathbf{r}_i}} = \sum_{i,j}{\mathbf{F}_i \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j} \delta q_j = \sum_{j}{Q}_j \delta q_j}\qquad (1.48)$$

The second term in equation (1.45) is therefore expanded as in (1.48) and then combined with the expansion for the first term $\mathbf{\dot p}_i\cdot\delta\mathbf{r}_i$ elsewhere , to give $$\sum_j\left[ \frac{d}{dt}\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \left( \sum_i{\frac{1}{2}m_iv_i^2} \right) \right] - \frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} \left( \sum_i{\frac{1}{2}m_iv_i^2} \right) - Q_j \right]\delta q_j$$

Note (1.45) is multiplied by -1 so the signs in the expression derived elsewhere for $\mathbf{\dot p}_i\cdot\delta\mathbf{r}_i$ remain the same, hence the $-Q_j$ term rather than $Q_j$. The outer summation is over $j$ and not $i$ as you've put down.

There's a link for correctons to this book if you're convinced you're right, http://astro.physics.sc.edu/goldstein/ although in this case it looks as if it's a misinterpretation on your part.

share|improve this answer
    
Please explain why you down voted so i can correct my answer –  Larry Harson Jul 18 '11 at 22:00

It should be

$$\begin{align*} \sum_i{ (\dot{\mathbf{p}}_i-\mathbf{F}_i) \cdot \delta{\mathbf{r}_i}} &= \sum_{i,j}{(m_i\ddot{\mathbf{r}}_i-\mathbf{F}_i) \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial q_j} \delta q_j}\\ &= \sum_{i,j}\left[ \frac{d}{dt}\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \left( \frac{1}{2}\sum_i{m_iv_i^2} \right) \right] - \frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} \left( \frac{1}{2}\sum_i{m_iv_i^2} \right) - Q_j \right]\delta q_j\\ &= \sum_{i,j}{\left[ \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial\dot{q}_j} \right) - \frac{\partial T}{\partial q_j} -Q_j \right] \delta q_j} \end{align*}$$

So read it again.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm using the 3rd ed. There must have been a mistake in the textbook. Equation (1.45) is $\sum_i{\left( \mathbf{F}_i^{(a)} - \dot{\mathbf{p}}_i \right) \cdot \delta\mathbf{r}_i} = 0$. Therefore, the "second term", as I understood it, is $\sum_i{\dot{\mathbf{p}}_i \cdot \delta\mathbf{r}_i}$. After working a bit more, I remembered that $\mathbf{F}_i^{(a)} \cdot \delta\mathbf{r}_i = Q_j\delta q_j$. That's when I realized that the $Q_j$ had something to do with $\mathbf{F}_i^{(a)}$. Therefore, it is a mistake by saying "...the second term expands to..." and including $-Q_j$. Am I right? –  Kit Jul 17 '11 at 14:36

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.