Does Noether's theorem apply to constrained system?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
$$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$



If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.



But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?



So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
    $$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$



    If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.



    But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
    With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?



    So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
      $$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$



      If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.



      But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
      With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?



      So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
      $$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$



      If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.



      But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
      With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?



      So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?







      classical-mechanics lagrangian-formalism symmetry noethers-theorem constrained-dynamics






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 3 hours ago









      Qmechanic

      101k121821135




      101k121821135






      New contributor




      CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 5 hours ago









      CO2

      161




      161




      New contributor




      CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      CO2 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:



          $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$



          For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff



          $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$



          telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            up vote
            0
            down vote














            1. Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.


            2. In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
              $$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
              and it leads to total momentum conservation.







            share|cite|improve this answer























            • @Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
              – Qmechanic
              1 hour ago












            • note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
              – Jerry Schirmer
              30 mins ago


















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
            begin{align*}
            &boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
            end{align*}



            With:



            $vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates



            $vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations



            $vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces



            $vec{f}_a$ External forces



            To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:



            $vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$



            with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.



            to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .



            D’Alembert approach:



            $J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$



            Conclusion:



            Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill



            equation (2)






            share|cite|improve this answer





















              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "151"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });






              CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448707%2fdoes-noethers-theorem-apply-to-constrained-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              2
              down vote













              When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:



              $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$



              For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff



              $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$



              telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:



                $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$



                For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff



                $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$



                telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:



                  $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$



                  For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff



                  $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$



                  telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:



                  $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$



                  For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff



                  $$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$



                  telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  Gonenc Mogol

                  2,85011332




                  2,85011332






















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote














                      1. Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.


                      2. In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
                        $$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
                        and it leads to total momentum conservation.







                      share|cite|improve this answer























                      • @Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
                        – Qmechanic
                        1 hour ago












                      • note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
                        – Jerry Schirmer
                        30 mins ago















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote














                      1. Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.


                      2. In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
                        $$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
                        and it leads to total momentum conservation.







                      share|cite|improve this answer























                      • @Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
                        – Qmechanic
                        1 hour ago












                      • note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
                        – Jerry Schirmer
                        30 mins ago













                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote










                      1. Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.


                      2. In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
                        $$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
                        and it leads to total momentum conservation.







                      share|cite|improve this answer















                      1. Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.


                      2. In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
                        $$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
                        and it leads to total momentum conservation.








                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited 1 hour ago

























                      answered 3 hours ago









                      Qmechanic

                      101k121821135




                      101k121821135












                      • @Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
                        – Qmechanic
                        1 hour ago












                      • note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
                        – Jerry Schirmer
                        30 mins ago


















                      • @Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
                        – Qmechanic
                        1 hour ago












                      • note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
                        – Jerry Schirmer
                        30 mins ago
















                      @Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
                      – Qmechanic
                      1 hour ago






                      @Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
                      – Qmechanic
                      1 hour ago














                      note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
                      – Jerry Schirmer
                      30 mins ago




                      note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
                      – Jerry Schirmer
                      30 mins ago










                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
                      begin{align*}
                      &boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
                      end{align*}



                      With:



                      $vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates



                      $vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations



                      $vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces



                      $vec{f}_a$ External forces



                      To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:



                      $vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$



                      with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.



                      to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .



                      D’Alembert approach:



                      $J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$



                      Conclusion:



                      Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill



                      equation (2)






                      share|cite|improve this answer

























                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
                        begin{align*}
                        &boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
                        end{align*}



                        With:



                        $vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates



                        $vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations



                        $vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces



                        $vec{f}_a$ External forces



                        To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:



                        $vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$



                        with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.



                        to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .



                        D’Alembert approach:



                        $J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$



                        Conclusion:



                        Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill



                        equation (2)






                        share|cite|improve this answer























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote









                          To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
                          begin{align*}
                          &boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
                          end{align*}



                          With:



                          $vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates



                          $vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations



                          $vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces



                          $vec{f}_a$ External forces



                          To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:



                          $vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$



                          with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.



                          to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .



                          D’Alembert approach:



                          $J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$



                          Conclusion:



                          Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill



                          equation (2)






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
                          begin{align*}
                          &boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
                          end{align*}



                          With:



                          $vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates



                          $vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations



                          $vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces



                          $vec{f}_a$ External forces



                          To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:



                          $vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$



                          with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.



                          to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .



                          D’Alembert approach:



                          $J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$



                          Conclusion:



                          Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill



                          equation (2)







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 55 mins ago









                          Eli

                          42916




                          42916






















                              CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                              draft saved

                              draft discarded


















                              CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                              CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448707%2fdoes-noethers-theorem-apply-to-constrained-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Ellipse (mathématiques)

                              Quarter-circle Tiles

                              Mont Emei