- #1
birulami
- 155
- 0
I am reading the book of Neuenschwander about Noether's Theorem. He explains the Euler-Lagrange equations by starting with
[tex]J=\int_a^b L(t,x^\mu,\dot x^\mu) dt[/tex]
From this he derives the Euler-Lagrange equations
[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x^\mu} = \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x^\mu}[/tex]
which is all well comprehensible. Then he describes how to introduce constraints of the form [itex]h(t,x^\mu)=0[/itex] to form a lagrangian with constraint [itex]L_c = L+\lambda h[/itex].
My question: The constraint does not depend on [itex]\dot x^\mu[/itex]. Is this just to simplify the derivation in this case or would a constraint [tex]h(t,\dot x^\mu)=0[/tex] invalidate the Euler-Lagrange equations? If the latter is true, how would we introduce constraints on the [itex]\dot x^\mu[/itex]?
[tex]J=\int_a^b L(t,x^\mu,\dot x^\mu) dt[/tex]
From this he derives the Euler-Lagrange equations
[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x^\mu} = \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x^\mu}[/tex]
which is all well comprehensible. Then he describes how to introduce constraints of the form [itex]h(t,x^\mu)=0[/itex] to form a lagrangian with constraint [itex]L_c = L+\lambda h[/itex].
My question: The constraint does not depend on [itex]\dot x^\mu[/itex]. Is this just to simplify the derivation in this case or would a constraint [tex]h(t,\dot x^\mu)=0[/tex] invalidate the Euler-Lagrange equations? If the latter is true, how would we introduce constraints on the [itex]\dot x^\mu[/itex]?