In Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, he suggests the use of Lagrange Multipliers to introduce certain types of non-holonomic and holonomic contraints into our action. The method he suggests is to define a modified Lagrangian $$L^{'}(\dot{q},q;t) = L(\dot{q},q;t) + \sum^{m}_{i = 1}\lambda_{i} f_{i}(\dot{q},q;t),$$ where $f_{i}(\dot{q},q;t)$ are $m$ equations of constraint, and $L$ the original Lagrangian. He then proceeds to define the action $S^{'} = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}L^{'}\,dt$ and takes the variation of $S^{'}$ to be zero, thus applying Hamilton's principle.

My confusion in this approach arises from the way in which the Lagrange Multipliers are introduced. I don't see why $\sum^{m}_{i = 1}\lambda_{i} f_{i}(\dot{q},q;t)$ should be introduced inside the integral.

In multivariable calculus, the Lagrange multiplier system stems from the idea that if we want to extremize a function subject to certain constraints, then the gradient of the function will be proportional to a linear combination of the gradient of the constraint equations. Here, the function in question is the action, not the Lagrangian. So, I feel like the resolution should be that $$\delta S + \delta \sum^{m}_{i = 1}\lambda_{i} f_{i}(\dot{q},q;t) = 0;\, S = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}L\,dt$$ and not $$\delta S^{'} = 0; \, S = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}L^{'}\,dt.$$

To me, it isn't clear if this makes sense or if the two methods are equivalent.


1 Answer 1

  1. It should be stressed that the constraints $$f_{\ell}(q,\dot{q},t), \qquad \ell~\in~\{1,\ldots, m\}$$ depends implicitly (and possible explicitly) of time $t$, so we have continuously many constraints, namely for each instant of time $t$.

    Therefore we should introduce continuously many Lagrange multipliers $\lambda^{\ell}(t)$.

    And therefore we should sum $\sum_{\ell=1}^m$ and time-integrate $\int\! dt$ the term $\lambda^{\ell}(t)f_{\ell}(q,\dot{q},t)$ in the extended action. This fact seems to answer OP's main question.

  2. Finally, it should be stressed that Goldstein's treatment of non-holonomic constraints for an action principle is flawed/inconsistent, cf. e.g. this & this Phys.SE posts.

    Properly speaking we should therefore assume that the constraints $f_{\ell}(q,\dot{q},t)$ does not depend on the generalized velocities $\dot{q}$, i.e. that they are holonomic $f_{\ell}(q,t)$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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