How to see this equality (Lagrangian mechanics)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the equality \nabla_{\textbf{q}} \langle \textbf{q}, P \textbf{q} \rangle = P \textbf{q}, where \textbf{q} is an n-dimensional vector and P is a real, Hermitian matrix. The participants analyze the Lagrangian \mathcal{L} = \frac{m}{2} \langle \dot{\textbf{q}}, \dot{\textbf{q}} \rangle - \frac{k}{2} \langle \textbf{q}, P \textbf{q} \rangle and its implications for deriving the equation of motion \ddot{\textbf{q}} = -\frac{k}{2m} P \textbf{q}. The symmetry of matrix P is emphasized, and discrepancies regarding the factor of 1/2 in calculations are discussed, indicating a need for careful component-wise analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with vector calculus and gradients
  • Knowledge of Hermitian matrices and their properties
  • Ability to perform component-wise calculations in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Lagrangian equations of motion
  • Learn about the properties of Hermitian matrices in physics
  • Explore vector calculus, specifically gradient operations
  • Investigate common pitfalls in Lagrangian mechanics calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on classical mechanics, as well as mathematicians interested in the applications of Hermitian matrices in physical systems.

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello,

Can anybody tell me why [itex]\nabla_{\textbf q} \langle \textbf q, P \textbf q \rangle = P \textbf q[/itex]?

Explanation of notations:
q is an n-dimensional vector: [itex]\textbf q = (q_1, q_2, \cdots, q_n)^T[/itex]
P is an nxn-dimensional, real, Hermitian matrix
[itex]\nabla_{\textbf q} := \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial q_1}, \cdots, \frac{\partial}{\partial q_n} \right)^T[/itex]

Background story: I know the (specific) Lagrangian is [itex]\mathcal L = \frac{m}{2} \langle \dot{\textbf q},\dot{\textbf q} \rangle - \frac{k}{2} \langle \textbf q, P \textbf q \rangle[/itex] and the book then tells me that [itex]\ddot{ \textbf q } = - \frac{k}{2m} P \textbf q[/itex] and I presume that they derived this from the Lagrangian equations [itex]\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt} \left( \nabla_{\dot{\textbf q}} \mathcal L \right) = \nabla_{\textbf q} \mathcal L[/itex] but to do that I need to have the above equality, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure that 1/2 is there? I'm not getting the 1/2 in my calculations. It's much simpler for me to do the calculation in terms of components:

[tex]L=\frac{1}{2}m\sum_k \dot{q}_k^2-\frac{1}{2}k\sum_{n,m}q_n P_{nm} q_m[/tex]

Giving:
[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}=m\dot{q}_i[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=-\frac{1}{2}k\sum_{n,m} (\delta_{in}P_{nm}q_m+\delta_{im}q_nP_{nm})[/tex]

Thus by the symmetry of P (real+hermitian = symmetric):
[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=-k\sum_{n} P_{in}q_n[/tex]

I get then:
[tex]\ddot{q}_i=-\frac{k}{m}\sum_{n} P_{in}q_n[/tex]

This is the component form of your last equation, except I'm missing the factor of 1/2. I could have made a mistake somewhere though.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
421
Replies
6
Views
1K