2

We restrict that $$\delta q\mid _{t_{1}}= \delta q\mid _{t_{2}}=0$$ while applying Hamilton Principle ($\delta\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}Ldt=0$) to get Euler-Lagrange’s Equations. Hence adding a $$\frac{d}{dt}\Lambda(q,t)$$ doesn’t change the principle as $$\delta\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\frac{d}{dt}\Lambda(q,t)dt=\delta\Lambda\mid_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}=0 \ .$$

My question is, why don’t we restrict $$\delta\dot{q}\mid_{t_{1}}=\delta\dot{q}\mid_{t_{2}}=0$$ as well, so that adding a $$\frac{d}{dt}\Lambda(q,\dot{q},t)$$ won’t change the principle? Why is it no longer feasible just because $$\dot{q}=\frac{dq}{dt} \ ?$$

Qmechanic
  • 220,844
Aimikan
  • 97

1 Answers1

2

Typically we assume that the EL equations are of 2nd order (and that the Lagrangian is of 1st order). Then 2 boundary conditions are needed per DOF. Imposing both Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions would overconstrain the system.

However, OP's proposal makes sense for higher-order systems, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.

Qmechanic
  • 220,844