Chain Rule in Lagrangian Transformation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the invariance of the Lagrangian under coordinate transformations, specifically addressing a step in the derivation presented in Goldstein's textbook. Participants explore the application of the chain rule in this context and its implications for the transformation of variables.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the term ##\frac{\partial q_{i}}{\partial t}## in the context of the chain rule applied to the Lagrangian, seeking clarification on its origin.
  • Another participant explains the standard chain rule and provides a general formula for differentiating functions of multiple variables, noting that if one variable is time, a specific term arises.
  • A later reply questions the omission of a term related to ##\dot s##, suggesting that it can be ignored only if ##q## is independent of ##\dot s##.
  • One participant confirms that ##q## is indeed independent of ##\dot s## and acknowledges the clarification provided by another participant.
  • Another participant suggests that for more general transformations, the Hamiltonian formulation may be preferable, highlighting its advantages in revealing the symplectic structure of phase space and its relevance to quantum theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of the chain rule and the independence of ##q## from ##\dot s##. However, there is a divergence in perspectives regarding the preference for Lagrangian versus Hamiltonian formulations for discussing transformations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the independence of variables and the applicability of the chain rule, which may not be universally accepted or applicable in all contexts.

SEGFAULT1119
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I'm trying to follow Goldstein textbook to show that the Lagrangian is invariant under coordinate transformation. I got confused by the step below
So
## L = L(q_{i}(s_{j},\dot s_{j},t),\dot q_{i}(s_{j},\dot s_{j},t),t)##

The book shows that ##\dot q_{i} = \frac {\partial q_{i}}{\partial s_{j}} \dot s_{j} + \frac{\partial q_{i}}{\partial t} ##,and I'm not sure where the ##\frac{\partial q_{i}}{\partial t} ## term come from? I've tried to look up chain rules for coordinate transformation but I can't find anything.

Please help!

Thank you :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is just the standard chain rule. Consider a function ##f(h,g)## where ##h## and ##g## are functions of some parameter ##t## and differentiate ##f## with respect to ##t##. The chain rule now states
$$
\frac{df}{dt} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial h} \frac{dh}{dt} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial g} \frac{dg}{dt}.
$$
Now, if ##g = t## you would obtain ##dg/dt = dt/dt = 1## and ##\partial f/\partial g = \partial f/\partial t## and therefore
$$
\frac{df}{dt} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial h} \frac{dh}{dt} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}.
$$

What is unclear is why a term ##(\partial q/\partial \dot s) \ddot s## is not included. You can only ignore this term if ##q## is a function only of ##s## and not of ##\dot s##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SEGFAULT1119
@Oroduin,

You are correct. q is independent of ##\dot s##. I mistyped the question. And thank you for your answer.
 
If you want more general transformations, it's better to use the generalized Hamilton principle in terms of the Hamiltonian rather the Lagrangian formulation. This leads to the more general canonical transformations in phase space rather than the less general diffeomorphism invariance of the Lagrangian formalism in configuration space.

The Hamiltonian phase-space formalism turns out to be the most valuable form of classical mechanics from a fundamental-physics point of view since it reveals the symplectic structure of phase space and allows for a quasi algebraic formulation of the dynamics in terms of Poisson brackets, which brings the classical theory very close to its extension to quantum theory.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K