Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on What does Lagrangian actually represent?

Parent

What does Lagrangian actually represent?

+4
−1

$L=T-U$ Here, $L$ is Lagrangian. T is kinetic energy. U is potential energy. But, what Lagrangian actually is? I know what Holonomic and non-holonomic is. But, I was thinking what the Lagrangian represent. Like, F represent force applied on some body. To me, Lagrangian is just representing some kind energy. But, what type of energy?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+0
−2

Lagrangian is no energy. It’s just the Lagrangian. It's perhaps more fundamental than energy in a certain sense. In general, you can think of it as a function that minimizes the action. That's the definition of Lagrangian. ~ said by Golam Ishtiak (You can find him right here also)

For reference

I don't have any opinion on it. Just posted what he told me.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Lagrangians don't minimize the action (1 comment)
Lagrangians don't minimize the action
Derek Elkins‭ wrote about 3 years ago

The Lagrangian doesn't minimizes the action. The Lagrangian is the integrand of the integral defining the action. The action is a function of trajectories. The trajectories that make the action stationary (not necessarily minimal) are the physically realizable trajectories. The Lagrangian isn't a trajectory so it doesn't even make sense to ask whether it minimizes the action.

Really, it's hard to define "Lagrangian" on its own. Pretty much any function at all can be called a (potentially higher- or lower-order) Lagrangian. You can define an action from it and produce (potentially higher- or lower-order) Euler-Lagrange equations from it. "Lagrangian" is a term that refers to part of a larger system, namely Lagrangian mechanics, in the same way "integrand" refers to a part of a larger expression. You can't classify arbitrary functions into ones that are integrands and ones that aren't.