Talk:Virtual displacement

I think the page needs a rewrite
Currently it describes virtual displacement almost exclusively in terms of antiquated and incomprehensible pseudo-infinitesimal approach. I added a paragraph attempting to clear up this mess from the point of view of real mathematics (as opposed to voodoo) but the whole thing really needs more work (and highly non-virtual one too!). It is obvious that even on this forum some of the confusion shows up. Cornelius Lanczos rightly complains about students' confusion regarding the idea but IMHO the blame for this lies squarely on the teachers who for some mysterious reason as soon as the word "mechanics" is uttered, instantly leave behind everything they had been teaching of modern calculus and revert to this terrible pre-Cauchy 17th-century gobbledy-gook. Read a good mechanics text, like Arnold or Saletan, etc.

I agree, but that goes with all pedantic Wikipedians who as students want to show off, for they ignore, 'simplicity is genius' Leonardo - the jargon of modern math, and all type of Cantorial bull$it, 'naming' as a way to explain things makes most wiki articles incomprehensible. Virtual displacement proves Nature does stop time=change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.254.161 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

JanBielawski (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Main idea
The main idea of virtual displacement is that it is arbitrary, or even imaginary. For practical application to actual physical system we usually consider only virtual displacements that meet the physical constraints; however, for generality, constraints should not be part of the definition of virtual displacements.

Hmm, well the way I see it, if virtual displacements are only ever really discussed in the context of constrained systems, then to say that they are really more general is merely a philosophy. I'd say that they're only imaginary in the sense that energy is imaginary or action is imaginary. Both are man-made constructs. Also, if virtual displacements really are completely arbitrary, what distinguishes them from plain ol' displacements? - Miles


 * But virtual displacements aren't only discussed in the context of constrained systems! For instance, there is a straightforward derivation of the conservation of energy using virtual displacements that doesn't require constraints.  On the other hand, it is important to understand how virtual displacements behave in the presence of constraints. Trevorgoodchild 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Displacements as a Special Case of Infinitesimal Displacements
I disagree with the current assertion that virtual displacements are a special case of infinitesimal displacements - it has always been my understanding that it is in fact the other way around. The issue is a little tricky to discuss, because there are two ways in which a displacement can be considered "arbitrary." Virtual displacements are not "arbitrary" in that they must satisfy the given constraints, but they are "arbitrary" in that they can happen in any direction that satisfies the given constraints. (Another way of thinking about it is that a virtual displacement occurs in every direction that satisfies these constraints.) On the other hand, "actual" displacements are not arbitrary in either sense: they must satisfy the given constraints and they occur in one particular direction since they depend completely on, e.g., an infinitesimal displacement in time.

Here's Lanczos' discussion of virtual vs. actual displacements from The Variational Principles of Mechanics (chapter 2, section 2):

"A "variation" means an infinitesimal change, in analogy with the d-process of ordinary calculus. However, contrary to the ordinary d-process, this infinitesimal change is not caused by the actual change of an independent variable, but is imposed by us on a set of variables as a kind of mathematical experiment.  Let us consider for example a marble which is at rest at the lowest point of a bowl.  The actual displacement of the marble is zero.  It is our desire, however, to bring the marble to a neighboring position in order to see how the potential energy changes.  A displacement of this nature is called a "virtual displacement."  The term "virtual" indicates that the displacement was intentionally made in any kinematically admissible manner. ... It was Lagrange's ingenious idea to introduce a special symbol for the process of variation, in order to emphasize its virtual character. This symbol is $$\delta$$. The analogy to $$d$$ brings to mind that both symbols refer to infinitesimal changes. However, $$d$$ refers to an actual, $$\delta$$ to a virtual change. ... Note the fundamental difference between $$\delta y$$ and $$dy$$. Both are infinitesimal changes of the function $$y$$. However the $$dy$$ refers to the infinitesimal change of the given function $$y=f(x)$$ caused by the infinitesimal change $$dx$$ of the independent variable, while $$\delta y$$ is an infinitesimal change of $$y$$ which produces a new function $$y+\delta y$$."

In fact, Lanczos uses the fact that the actual displacements (the $$d$$s) are a special case of the virtual displacements (the $$\delta$$s) when deriving the conservation of energy (chapter 4, section 3):

"...let us now dispose of the $$\delta R_k$$ - which mean arbitrary tentative variations of the radius vector $$R_k$$ - in a special way. Let these tentative displacements coincide with the actual displacements as they occur during the time $$dt$$.  This means that we replace $$\delta R_k$$ by $$d R_k$$, which is merely a special application of the variation principle."

Trevorgoodchild 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the argument about,because I also think so... and I suggest that this shall not be confused with the one relevant to the calculus of variation,which differs in implication. Warren Leywon (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)