Derivation of Lagrangian in the calculus of variations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Lagrangian in the context of the calculus of variations. Participants are examining the expression involving the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to a perturbed variable.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the chain rule to derive a specific expression related to the Lagrangian. They express uncertainty about evaluating the partial derivative at a specific point and question how to proceed with the dependence of the Lagrangian on the perturbed variable.
  • Some participants question the appropriateness of using a partial derivative in this context and suggest that the Lagrangian should be treated as a function of a single variable.
  • Others propose considering a Taylor series expansion to express the Lagrangian in terms of its derivatives with respect to the variable.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the problem and suggesting various approaches. There is no explicit consensus, but some guidance has been offered regarding the use of Taylor series and the nature of the Lagrangian's dependence on its variables.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of differentiating functions in the context of variational calculus, with some expressing concerns about the assumptions made regarding the variables involved.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
839
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K