Derivation of Euler-Lagrange Equation

AI Thread 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.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top