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.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

Similar threads

Back
Top