How Is the Equation of Motion Derived from the Classical String Model?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the equation of motion from the classical string model using a Lagrangian framework. The original poster presents a Lagrangian involving mass and spring constants, leading to a second-order differential equation for a discrete system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore how to derive the equation of motion from the Lagrangian, questioning the transition from first-order potential terms to the resulting second-order differential equation. There is a focus on evaluating derivatives and understanding the implications of summation in the context of the Lagrangian.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some providing insights into the differentiation process and the handling of terms within the Lagrangian. There is a recognition of the complexity involved in evaluating the derivatives, and multiple interpretations of the equations are being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the discrete nature of the system and the specific formulation of the Lagrangian, which may influence the approach to deriving the equations of motion. Participants are also navigating potential typographical errors in their expressions.

Phymath
Messages
183
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm starting QFT and many books I've started to read start with the introduction of a field in a classical string model

with a Lagrange equation

[tex]L(q,\dot{q}) = \sum[\frac{m}{2}\dot{q}_{j}^{2}-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j}-q_{j+1})^{2}][/tex]

the equation of motion becomes

[tex]m \ddot{q_j}-k(q_{j+1}-2q_j + q_{j-1}) = 0[/tex]

my question is how do we get this equation of motion its a discrete derivative but I recognize this as the 3 point second derivative formula, but Lagrange formulation is only first order for the potential part

[tex]f'' = \frac{f(x+h)-2f(x)+f(x-h)}{h^2}[/tex]

any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you remember from classical mechanics, the equations of motion formed from the Lagrangian will always give you [itex]n[/itex] second order differential equations for a system with [itex]n[/itex] degrees of freedom.

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}_i}\right) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}[/tex]
 
I agree with you on that however the second order only appears on the

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q_i}})[/tex]

the potential term is only first order so how do I evaluate

[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}[/tex] to give

[tex] \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j}-q_{j+1})^{2}) = k(q_{j+1}-2q_j + q_{j-1})[/tex]
 
Phymath said:
how do I evaluate

[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}[/tex] to give

[tex] \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j}-q_{j+1})^{2}) = k(q_{j+1}-2q_j + q_{j-1})[/tex]

What do you get for

[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}[/tex]

when

[tex] L = \sum_j \left[\frac{m}{2}\dot{q}_{j}^{2}-\frac{k}{2} \left(q_{j}-q_{j+1} \right)^{2} \right] ?[/tex]
 
i don't know that's exactly what I'm asking...

[tex] <br /> \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_j} = -k(q_j-q_{j+1}) (1-\frac{\partial}{\partial q_j}q_{j+1})<br /> [/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two terms that have [tex]q_j[/tex] in them because of the sum. You are taking the derivative of:
[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j}-q_{j+1})^{2}-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j-1}-q_{j})^{2})\equiv -k(q_{j}-q_{j+1})+k(q_{j-1}-q_{j}) \equiv k(q_{j-1}-2q_{j}+q_{j+1})[/tex].
I hope that helps
 
Phymath said:
i don't know that's exactly what I'm asking...

[tex] <br /> \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_j} = -k(q_j-q_{j+1}) (1-\frac{\partial}{\partial q_j}q_{j+1})<br /> [/tex]

Careful; in my post the derivative was with respect to [itex]i[/itex] and the sum is over [itex]j[/itex]. Let me expand on what badphysicist wrote. Use

[tex]\frac{\partial q_j}{\partial q_i} = \delta_{ij}.[/tex]

For example, [itex]\partial x / \partial x = 1[/itex] and [itex]\partial y / \partial x = 0.[/itex]

After differentiating, there is still a sum over [itex]j[/itex], i.e.,

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} \sum_j = \sum_j \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i},[/tex]

but, because of the [itex]\delta[/itex]'s, all but a few terms will be zero.
 
Oh yeah, I see the typo I made. Here's the corrected version..
[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(-\frac{k}{2}(q_{i}-q_{i+1})^{2}-\frac{k}{2}(q_{i-1}-q_{i})^{2})\equiv -k(q_{i}-q_{i+1})+k(q_{i-1}-q_{j}) \equiv k(q_{i-1}-2q_{i}+q_{i+1})[/tex]
 
thanks that definitely helps I didn't think of the sum thanks again
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K