How is the Action Minimized for an Arbitrary Lagrangian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RelativeQuanta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian
RelativeQuanta
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm reading my textbook and trying to follow the math on how to minimize the action for an arbitrary Lagrangian. The author states that the action is:
<br /> S[x(t)] = \int^{t_B}_{t_A} dt L( \dot x(t),x(t)) <br />

Then the author goes on to talk about finding the extrema for the action by computing \delta S[x(t)]. The author says to compute this by substituing x(t) + \delta x(t) into the definition for the action, expanding to 1st order and integrate by parts. The text then shows this:
<br /> \delta S[x(t)] = \int^{t_B}_{t_A} dt [\frac {\partial L}{\partial \dot x(t)} \delta \dot x(t) + \frac {\partial L}{\partial x(t)} \delta x(t)] = [ \frac {\partial L}{\partial \dot x(t)} \delta x(t) ]^{t_B}_{t_A} + \int^{t_B}_{t_A} dt [ - \frac {d}{dt} \frac {\partial L}{\partial \dot x(t)} + \frac {\partial L}{\partial x(t)} ] \delta x(t)<br />

What I don't understand is how the author got this. If all he did was substitute and expand like he said to do, what happened to the 0th order term from the expansion? I'm also unsure how he got the right most form of the equation using integration by parts.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Given a function X(t)=x(t)+\delta{x}(t), (where x(t) is the assumed solution of the resulting diff. eq.) he is looking at the first order term of:
\bigtriangleup{S}\equiv{S}(X(t))-S(x(t))
That first order expression is proportional to \delta{x}(t), and is called \delta{S}(x(t))
 
Ah, ok. That makes sense, I just wish the author had made that clear.

Thanks
 
One other question that's sort of related to the first. In this case, the author talked about a value \delta S[x(t)]. I notice that if I simpily take the first order derivative, I get something that looks exactly the same except for all the little deltas changing to d's. Is there any real difference? Or is the delta notation just to keep you from being confused as to what is being integrated?
 
Well, the variation can be regarded as a differential on A FUNCTION SPACE, rather than, say, on the real line of numbers.

It is the type of space we're working with that is different; the basic "idea" is the same.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top