How to get this equation - Mechanics by Landau and Lifshitz

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific equation presented in "Mechanics" by Landau and Lifshitz, focusing on the process of changing the order of integration in a double integral. Participants seek clarification on the mathematical steps involved and the implications of the notation used in the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the original equation and requests a breakdown of the integration process.
  • Another participant provides a link to resources on changing the order of integration, indicating a need for foundational understanding.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of the notation in the book, suggesting that it may imply decoupling of integrals when that may not be the case.
  • Some participants argue that the square bracketed term can be factored out of the inner integral due to its independence from E.
  • Disagreement arises regarding whether the order of integration has truly changed or if it is merely a simplification.
  • Clarifications are made about the interpretation of parameters like α in the context of the U-E plane, with questions about the representation of lines in that plane.
  • Participants express confusion about the placement of differential elements (dU, dE) in the integrals and how they relate to the variables of integration.
  • Discussion includes the common practice of using the same variable name inside and outside of integrals, leading to potential misunderstandings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and correctness of the notation used in the equation, with no consensus reached on whether the integrals are decoupled or if the order of integration has been appropriately changed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the dependencies of variables within the integrals and the implications of notation, which may not be fully resolved in the discussion.

omoplata
Messages
327
Reaction score
2
In page 28 of Mechanics by Landau and Lifgarbagez, there is the following equation.

\int_0^\alpha \frac{T(E) dE}{\sqrt{\alpha-E}}=\sqrt{2m}\int_0^\alpha \int_0^E \left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] \frac{dU dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}}

Then, by changing the order of integration, it is converted to,

\int_0^\alpha \frac{T(E) dE}{\sqrt{\alpha-E}}=\sqrt{2m}\int_0^\alpha \left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] dU \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}}

I don't really understand how this happens. Could someone please break it down for me? Thanks.

An image of the page is attached.
 

Attachments

  • LandauLifshitz_pg28.jpeg
    LandauLifshitz_pg28.jpeg
    42.5 KB · Views: 771
Physics news on Phys.org
omoplata said:
Then, by changing the order of integration, it is converted to,

\int_0^\alpha \frac{T(E) dE}{\sqrt{\alpha-E}}=\sqrt{2m}\int_0^\alpha \left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] dU \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}}
I don't like the way they've written the last line. It makes it look as though the integrals have been decoupled. Clearer would be:
\sqrt{2m}\int_{U=0}^\alpha \left(\left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] dU \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}}\right)
For the change of order, think about the total set of values of U and E being integrated over. (Perhaps think of it as a region in the U-E plane.) Both range from 0 to α, but with the condition that U < E (a triangle in the plane). If you let E range second, that becomes "U = 0 to E for each E, while E = 0 to α". If you swap the order then it's "E = U to α for each U, while U = 0 to α"
 
The square bracketed term doesn't contain any dependence on E, so it can be brought outside the inner integral.

I don't think the order has actually been changed, it's just a simplification, in the same way that you might simplify d(2x^2)/dx to 2(d(x^2)/dx), because 2 is not a function of x.
 
MikeyW said:
The square bracketed term doesn't contain any dependence on E, so it can be brought outside the inner integral.
You're overlooking the presence of E in the range for the (original) inner integral. This makes the inner integral a function of E.
 
Ah- that makes sense! Note to self- don't second guess Landau and Lifgarbagez.
 
Thanks for the links and the explanations. But I still don't get one small part.

So what they mean by saying "\alpha is a parameter" is that it is a constant, right? So if I draw the E = \alpha line in the U - E plane it will be a straight line parallel to the U axis? Similarly, the U = \alpha line will be straight line parallel to the E axis?

Assuming that, I get this from the original equation,
\int_0^\alpha \frac{T(E) dE}{\sqrt{\alpha-E}}=\sqrt{2m}\int_0^\alpha \left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE dU}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}}

How did they move the dU to the left of the second integration sign to get the final answer? Doesn't that decouple the integrals? The integration with respect to E is still a function of U, so it cannot be taken out of the integration with respect to U.
 
Last edited:
omoplata said:
How did they move the dU to the left of the second integration sign to get the final answer? Doesn't that decouple the integrals? The integration with respect to E is still a function of U, so it cannot be taken out of the integration with respect to U.
That's what I was complaining about in my earlier post. The way it's written in the book, you could misread it as having decoupled the integrals. What they mean is:
\sqrt{2m}\int_{U=0}^\alpha \left(\left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] dU \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}}\right)
Here I've deliberately made only the minimal change of putting in parentheses, but it says the same as this, which is even clearer:
\sqrt{2m}\int_{U=0}^\alpha \left(\left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}}dU\right)
 
Oh OK. I was always under the impression that when you use integration as an operation the operand always has to be between the \int and the dU.

But when it's written down like this, \int_0^\alpha \frac{T(E) dE}{\sqrt{\alpha-E}}=\sqrt{2m}\int_0^\alpha \left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] dU \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}} how do you know that the term \frac{1}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}} is to be integrated with respect to U? Because there is a U in it?
 
  • #10
omoplata said:
Oh OK. I was always under the impression that when you use integration as an operation the operand always has to be between the \int and the dU.
That is the usual style, but in principle the dU is just a factor in the expression.
But when it's written down like this, \int_0^\alpha \frac{T(E) dE}{\sqrt{\alpha-E}}=\sqrt{2m}\int_0^\alpha \left[ \frac{dx_2}{dU}-\frac{dx_1}{dU}\right] dU \int_U^\alpha \frac{dE}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}} how do you know that the term \frac{1}{\sqrt{[(\alpha-E)(E-U)]}} is to be integrated with respect to U? Because there is a U in it?
Yes and no.
1. If there had been no U in the second integral then it would have been independent of the first, so it wouldn't matter whether you thought it was inside or decoupled.
2. Since there is a U in the second integral, and since the variable of integration has no meaning outside the integral, it is implicitly inside the first integral.
3. But, it is very common to use the same symbol inside and outside an integral, e.g. y = x + \int_0^xx^2.dxThis really means y = x + \int_{t=0}^xt^2.dtThe use of x both inside and outside is a 'pun'. Since this means you cannot rely on (2), it's better to make the expression clear with suitable use of parentheses.
 
  • #11
Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K