Derivation of Euler-Lagrange Equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation, focusing on the mathematical reasoning behind certain derivative expressions. Participants explore the implications of treating variables as functions of others and the distinctions between partial and total derivatives in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why the derivative of a function with respect to alpha does not include a term for the derivative with respect to x, suggesting that x is held constant.
  • Another participant agrees with this reasoning, emphasizing that y is a function of both x and alpha, and thus the derivatives with respect to alpha are partial derivatives.
  • A participant introduces an example from Feynman's lectures involving a kinetic Lagrangian density to illustrate the concept, showing how variations in y relate to the derivation.
  • There is a suggestion that when x is treated as the dependent variable, it is y that varies, reinforcing the reasoning for not including a derivative term for x in certain expressions.
  • Another participant proposes an alternative representation of y as a function of x and a variation term, indicating a potential avenue for deeper understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning that x is held constant when considering variations with respect to alpha, but there is no consensus on the broader implications or the completeness of the derivation process.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion may depend on specific assumptions about the relationships between the variables involved, and there are unresolved questions about the completeness of the mathematical steps presented.

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.

[tex]\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}[/tex]

Why is it not:

[tex]\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}[/tex]

Or better yet:

[tex]\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}[/tex]


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 [itex]\partial f/\partial x = 0[/itex]. 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) :

[tex] S = \int_{a}^b \dot{y}^2 dx[/tex]

Let

[tex] y = \bar{y} + \alpha[/tex]

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

Taking derivatives
[tex] \dot{y} &= \dot{\bar{y}} + \dot{\alpha}[/tex]

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

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

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

[tex] \ddot{y} = 0[/tex]

(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 [itex]\partial x/\partial \alpha[/itex] as in the second two equations you listed.
 
Last edited:
I think perhaps a better understanding might come from writing
[tex] y = \bar{y} + \alpha \eta(x)[/tex]
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K