Lagrangian mechanics of continuous systems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on generalizing Lagrangian mechanics to continuous systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom, specifically for conservative systems that do not explicitly depend on time. The author proposes that Lagrange's equation still holds in this context, using a continuous parameter to describe the system. An example involving a continuous spring illustrates the derivation of the Lagrangian and the resulting equations of motion. Another participant suggests that this approach resembles Lagrangian field theory, highlighting the importance of considering the Lagrangian density for such systems. The conversation emphasizes the relevance of existing literature on classical field theory for further exploration of these concepts.
adriank
Messages
534
Reaction score
1
I'm thinking about generalizations of Lagrangian mechanics to systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom, but what I've got uses some extremely sketchy math that still appears to give a correct result. I only consider conservative systems that do not explicitly depend on time.

Of course, if our system is described by finitely many coordinates q_i and a Lagrangian L = L(\mathbf{q}, \dot{\mathbf{q}}), then the motion obeys Lagrange's equation
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q_i} = 0,
or equivalently,
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{q}} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\mathbf{q}}} = 0,
where \partial L / \partial \mathbf{q} is a directional derivative
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{q}}(\mathbf{v}) = \left. \frac{d}{d\tau} L(\mathbf{q} + \tau \vect{v}, \dot{\mathbf{q}}) \right\rvert_{\tau = 0},
and similarly for \partial L / \partial \dot{\mathbf{q}}.

Now say our system is described by some continuous parameter s, so we again have L = L(q, \dot q), but this time q is a function of both s and t. I make the bold claim that Lagrange's equation still holds in this sense:
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q} = 0,
where the derivatives of the Lagrangian are some functional directional derivative:
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}(f) = \left. \frac{d}{d\tau} L(q + \tau f, \dot q) \right\rvert_{\tau = 0},
where f is some function of s.

As an example, suppose we have a continuous spring, with an unextended length of 0, confined to the y axis. Its position is described by a function y(s, t), where s ranges from 0 to \ell; the parameter s perhaps represents length along the coil from one end. Its mass and spring constant per unit length are \mu and \kappa. I write y' to mean \partial y / \partial s. The potential energy and kinetic energy are
V = \int_0^\ell \mu g y(s) + \frac12 \kappa \left( \frac{\partial y(s)}{\partial s} \right)^2 \,ds, \quad<br /> T = \int_0^\ell \frac12 \mu \dot y(s)^2 \,ds,
so the Lagrangian is
L = \int_0^\ell \frac12 \mu \dot y(s)^2 - \mu gy(s) - \frac12 \kappa y&#039;(s)^2 \,ds.
The directional derivatives with respect to y and y&#039; of the Lagrangian satisfy
\frac{\partial L}{\partial y}(f) = \left. \frac{d}{d\tau} \int_0^\ell \frac12 \mu \dot y(s)^2 - \mu g (y(s) + \tau f(s)) - \frac12 \kappa (y&#039;(s) + \tau f&#039;(s))^2 \,ds \right\rvert_{\tau = 0} = -\int_0^\ell \mu g f(s) + \kappa y&#039;(s) f&#039;(s) \,ds
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot y}(f) = \left. \frac{d}{d\tau} \int_0^\ell \frac12 \mu (\dot y(s) + \tau f(s))^2 - \mu gy(s) - \frac12 \kappa y&#039;(s)^2 \right\rvert_{\tau = 0} = \int_0^\ell \mu \dot y(s) f(s) \,ds
Thus, Lagrange's equation gives
\int_0^\ell \mu g f(s) + \kappa y&#039;(s) f&#039;(s) + \frac{d}{dt} \mu \dot y(s) f(s) \,ds = 0.
Integration by parts on the second term and simplifying gives
\kappa (y&#039;(\ell) f(\ell) - y&#039;(0) f(0)) - \int_0^\ell \left[ \mu g - \kappa y&#039;&#039;(s) + \mu \ddot y(s) \right] f(s) \,ds = 0.
I claim that somehow the term on the left disappears. Since this equation must be true for any function f, the expression in brackets must be zero; we then get the equation of motion
\ddot y(s) = \frac{\kappa}{\mu} y&#039;&#039;(s) - g.
It seems like a physically reasonable equation; solutions oscillate over time, and if we say fix y(\ell) = 0, then in an equilibrium solution y(s) = (\mu g/2\kappa) (s^2 - \ell^2) the tension \kappa y&#039;(s) at any point is equal to the weight \mu gs of the spring below that point.

Has anyone seen anything that looks somewhat like this? I looked around and couldn't really find anything that looked like this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cool, so you've reinvented Lagrangian field theory! Since your Lagrangian is an integral over s, is better to consider its integrand and call it a "Lagrangian density". Can you derive the Euler-Lagrange equations for a Lagrangian density? In any case, I hope you have enough buzzwords now to read up on this, there's a huge literature on classical field theory.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top