Derivation of Euler-Lagrange Equation

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation and the confusion surrounding the use of partial versus total derivatives. It is clarified that since y is a function of x and alpha, the derivative of f with respect to alpha does not involve x, which is held constant. This explains why the derivatives with respect to y and y' are partial derivatives rather than total derivatives. An example from Feynman's lectures illustrates this concept, showing how varying y while keeping x constant leads to the correct formulation. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the value of revisiting foundational resources like Feynman's work for clearer understanding.
Prologue
Messages
183
Reaction score
1
I am stuck in trying to understand the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation. This mathematical move is really bothering me, I can't figure out why it is true.

\frac{\partial f(y,y';x)}{\partial\alpha}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial\alpha}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y'}\frac{\partial y'}{\partial\alpha}

Why is it not:

\frac{\partial f(y,y';x)}{\partial\alpha}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial\alpha}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y'}\frac{\partial y'}{\partial\alpha}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial\alpha}

Or better yet:

\frac{df(y,y';x)}{d\alpha}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\frac{d y}{d\alpha}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y'}\frac{d y'}{d\alpha}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{d x}{d\alpha}


Edit: I think I have found some sound reasoning. That y is a function of x and alpha. So the derivative of f w.r.t. alpha does not involve x. In fact x is held constant for that derivative. That is why dy/d(alpha) and dy'/d(alpha) are partials and not total derivatives.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Prologue said:
Edit: I think I have found some sound reasoning. That y is a function of x and alpha. So the derivative of f w.r.t. alpha does not involve x. In fact x is held constant for that derivative. That is why dy/d(alpha) and dy'/d(alpha) are partials and not total derivatives.

I don't think you would say that \partial f/\partial x = 0. Instead you are allowing y to vary with alpha (for all and any values of x), but x is not a function of this variation.

I don't know if you've seen it, but Feynman's lectures (volume II in what he calls the "entertainment" chapter)
has some nice simple examples of these ideas.
They cut the complexity out of the picture and treat some simple concrete cases. One of these simplest examples was a pure kinetic Lagrangian density, like the following (he probably included the mass and factor of one half but I've been lazy) :

<br /> S = \int_{a}^b \dot{y}^2 dx<br />

Let

<br /> y = \bar{y} + \alpha<br />

Here \bar{y} is the optimal solution that you are looking for, and \alpha(a) = \alpha(b) = 0 (variation vanishes at the end points).

Taking derivatives
<br /> \dot{y} &amp;= \dot{\bar{y}} + \dot{\alpha}<br />

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> S <br /> &amp;= \int_{a}^b \left(\dot{\bar{y}} + \dot{\alpha} \right)^2 dx \\<br /> &amp;= \int_{a}^b \left(\dot{\bar{y}}^2 + 2 \dot{\alpha}\dot{\bar{y}} + \dot{\alpha}^2 \right) dx \\<br /> &amp;= \int_{a}^b \left(\bar{\dot{y}}^2 - 2 {\alpha}\ddot{\bar{y}} - {\alpha}\ddot{\alpha} \right) dx \\<br /> \end{align*}<br />

and for the derivative to be zero
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> 0 &amp;= \left. \frac{dS }{d\alpha} \right\vert_{\alpha = 0} \\<br /> &amp;= -2 \int_{a}^b \ddot{\bar{y}} dx \\<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Dropping the overbar, you have for the desired solution to the variation

<br /> \ddot{y} = 0<br />

(particle moves with constant velocity in absence of force).

EDIT: In retrospect, the point of my example may not be clear. When x is the dependent variable (y = y(x)), x is not varied, instead it is y that is varied, and I was hoping the example showed why you don't have a \partial x/\partial \alpha as in the second two equations you listed.
 
Last edited:
I think perhaps a better understanding might come from writing
<br /> y = \bar{y} + \alpha \eta(x)<br />
 
Thank you, everyone always seems to come through for me here. I am not sure why I have to be reminded to check the feynman lectures, it should be one of the first things I think of by now.
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
494
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K