Derivation of Lagrangian in the calculus of variations

Joggl
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
##\frac {d} {d\epsilon}\left. L(q+\epsilon \psi) \right|_{\epsilon = 0} ##

where the index ##\epsilon = 0## means the derivative of the function evaluated at this point.
Relevant Equations
##q=q(t)##
##\psi = \psi (q(t), \dot{q}(t), t)##
Hello. In a chapter of a book I just read it is given that

##\frac {d} {d\epsilon}\left. L(q+\epsilon \psi) \right|_{\epsilon = 0} = \frac {\partial L} {\partial q} \psi ##

While trying to get to this conclusion myself I've stumbled over some problem.
First I apply the chain rule:

##\left.(\frac {\partial L(q+\epsilon \psi)} {\partial (q+\epsilon \psi)} \frac {d (q+\epsilon \psi)} {d \epsilon}) \right|_{\epsilon = 0} ##

The second part of the product can be evaluated since ##q## and ##\psi## do not depend on ##\epsilon##:

##\frac {d (q+\epsilon \psi)} {d \epsilon} = \psi##

This leads to:
##\frac {d} {d\epsilon}\left. L(q+\epsilon \psi) \right|_{\epsilon = 0} = \left.(\frac {\partial L(q+\epsilon \psi)} {\partial (q+\epsilon \psi)} \frac {d (q+\epsilon \psi)} {d \epsilon}) \right|_{\epsilon = 0} = \left.(\frac {\partial L(q+\epsilon \psi)} {\partial (q+\epsilon \psi)} \psi) \right|_{\epsilon = 0}##

And now, I don't know how to continue since I think it is not allowed to evaluate the arguments of the Operator ##\frac {\partial L(q+\epsilon \psi)} {\partial (q+\epsilon \psi)}## at ##\epsilon = 0##
In my opinion this evaluation has to be done after the derivation which I can't calculate since it's not clear how ##L## depends on ##(q+\epsilon \psi)##
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
As you write it, the Lagrangian is a function only of the one variable. You shouldn't be writing a partial derivative. But to answer your question the two functions ##L'(q+\epsilon\psi)## and ##L'(q)## agree at ##\epsilon=0## where ##L'(y)=\frac{dL(y)}{dy}##.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Can you think of a way to write ##L(q+\epsilon \psi)## in terms of derivatives of ##L## with respect to ##q##, given that ##\epsilon \psi## is very small?
 
Yes... look up Taylor-Maclaurian series expansion of a function in your Calculus 1 textbook.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top