Equation of Motion from Lagrangian - Zee QTF in a Nutshell

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Lagrangian formalism to derive equations of motion, specifically using an example from Zee's "QTF in a Nutshell." Participants explore the conversion process from a given Lagrangian to its corresponding equations of motion, addressing challenges and clarifications related to the derivation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about applying the formula for converting a Lagrangian to an equation of motion, specifically regarding Zee's example.
  • Another participant suggests showing the attempt to derive the equations to identify where the confusion lies.
  • A reference to the Wikipedia page on Lagrangian mechanics is provided as a potential resource for clarification.
  • One participant advises applying the Euler-Lagrange equations as a standard method for deriving equations of motion.
  • A participant shares their attempt, noting that their calculations did not match the expected equation of motion due to a persistent 1/2 factor from the Lagrangian.
  • Another participant points out that the 1/2 factor arises from the symmetry of the summation over indices in the Lagrangian, suggesting a clearer understanding by considering a simplified case with two variables.
  • One participant confirms that they were able to resolve their confusion after following the advice to analyze specific terms in the series and recognizing the symmetry in the K terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the initial confusion regarding the derivation process, but there is agreement on the utility of the Euler-Lagrange equations and the importance of recognizing symmetry in the Lagrangian. The discussion reflects a progression from confusion to understanding for at least one participant, but overall uncertainty remains in the initial steps of the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss specific assumptions about the symmetry of the spring constant and the implications for the Lagrangian. The discussion highlights the need for careful attention to indices and terms in the derivation process, which may lead to different interpretations or results.

sloneranger
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I need help understanding how to apply the formula for converting a Lagrangian to an equation of motion in this following specific application.
On page 4 of Zee's QTF in a Nutshell, he gives a Lagrangian (equation 1). In the following sentence he gives the corresponding equation of motion. I know the formula for converting a Lagrangian, but I don't get/understand Zee's answer. I have searched books and online without finding a similar worked out example.
Help is most appreciated. (I hope the formulas show below show up correctly.)
Thanks, Richard
(1) L = 1/2(∑am(dqa/dt)2 - ∑a,bkabqaqb - ...)

equation of motion => m(d2qa/dt2)a = - ∑bKabqb
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe you can show your attempt to go from the given Lagrangian to some equations of motion? It would be helpful to see where exactly you get stuck or go wrong.
 
Just apply the Euler Lagrange equations. That is always the standard way of going from a Lagrangian to an equation of motion:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}\right)-\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=0$$
 
Here is what I had done that didn't work.
Chosing a particular point mass which I still called qa, gets rid of the summations over index a. Now I applied the Lagrangian to equation of motion formula.

d/dt(∂L/∂q^{}.a) - ∂L/∂qa = 0

The first term LHS comes out correct as mq^{}..a

for the second term LHS I get 1/2∑bkabqb

The 1/2 multiplier from the Lagrangian didn't go away. This doesn't match the equation of motion in the book.
 
My previous post has the time derivative dot and the "a" subscript reversed. Oops.
 
The second term has that 1/2 because the sum is over all values of a and b, and the summand is symmetric (assuming that k is symmetric).

Maybe it's easier to see if you write out the terms assuming only 2 q's q1 and q2:

You will get a Lagrangian which looks like this:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(m\left(\dot{q}_1^2+\dot{q}_2^2\right)+k_{12}q_1q_2+k_{21}q_2q_1\right)$$

Since k should be symmetric (it is, after all, defined to be the spring constant between 2 masses, and so how could it not be symmetric?), you get 2 identical terms at the end there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
So are you Ok now?
 
Thanks for all the good input. I followed the advice to write out a few terms in the series and to note that the K terms with the indexes swapped were identical. Then I was able to see how the 1/2 went away in the equation of motion. From there I could see how to generalize the answer to more point masses. Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K