Landau's derivation of the Langangian expression

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the complexities of expanding the Lagrangian L in terms of small variations dq and dq'. The main challenge is understanding how to apply Taylor expansion to L while ensuring that terms involving products of q and dq do not interfere with the desired outcomes. It is emphasized that dq and dq' should be treated as independent variables during this expansion. The conversation also touches on deriving the Euler-Lagrange equations using trial functions that satisfy boundary conditions, leading to the necessary condition for extremum in action. Ultimately, the focus is on correctly formulating the action's variation to derive meaningful physical equations.
lewis198
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
I'm going over the Landau's Mechanics, and can't get over two hurdles.

The first is the following(I'm not good with latex here, so please bear with me):

Landau asserts that the action S' between t1 and t2 of a Lagrangian L such that L is a function of (q+dq) and (q'+dq') minus the action S between t1 and t2 of a Lagrangian L such that L is a function of q and q', the gives a difference, that, expanded in powers of dq and dq' equals zero. Also, dq(t1)=dq(t2)=0.

OK, for this to be the case, S' must equal S' plus some residue R. R must then be formed of integrals of terms that are multiples of dq and dq' so that when integrated (definite) give 0.

Landau therefore expands S'-S 'in powers of' dq ad dq'. Here's my problem: How can you expand L in powers of dq and dq'? Talyor expansion allows for expansion in terms of q and q', and if I substitute q for q+dq I do in fact get the terms in dq and dq', but I also have annoying terms like 2q*dq and the like- I can see that q and q^2 terms will vanish due to S expanded.

So the question still stands: How can you expand L in powers of dq and dq'? is the above way satisfactory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider q and q' as two independent variables.

Let think that you have function
f(x,y) and use Talyor expansion for this function with two independent variables x and y.
 
Last edited:
I understand that, but here we have the variables 'x'=(q+dq) and 'y'=(q'+dq') and we want an expansion for dq and dq'.
 
f(x+dx,y+dy)-f(x,y)=(df/dx)dx+(df/dy)dy
where dx=dq and dy=dq'.
 
One way to derive the Euler-Lagrange equations is the following. Assume the extremal curve is \bar{q}(t). We define a one-parameter family of trial functions:

<br /> q(t; \alpha) = \bar{q}(t) + \alpha \, \eta(t)<br />

where \eta(t) are arbitrary smooth functions which satisfy the boundary conditions:

<br /> \eta(t_{1}) = \eta(t_{2}) = 0<br />

so that the trial functions automatically satistfy the boundary conditions:

<br /> q(t_{1}; \alpha) = \bar{q}(t_{1}) = q_{1}<br />

<br /> q(t_{2}; \alpha) = \bar{q}(t_{2}) = q_{2}<br />

It is obvious from our construction that among all the trial functions, the extermum is achieved for \alpha = 0, because q(t; 0) = \bar{q}(t) then. But, if we insert the trial function in the expression for the action:

<br /> F(\alpha) = S[q(t; \alpha)] = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}{L(t, \bar{q} + \alpha \, \eta, \dot{\bar{q}} + \alpha \, \dot{\bar{q}} + \eta \, \dot{\eta}) dt}<br />

it becomes an explicit function of the parameter \alpha. Using the necessary condition of extermum, we must have:

<br /> F&#039;(0) = 0<br />

If we try to calculate the derivative of F(\alpha) with respect to \alpha, we will need to use the rules of finding parametric derivatives:

<br /> F&#039;(0) = \int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}{\left\{ \frac{\partial L}{\partial q}(t, \bar{q}, \dot{\bar{q}}) \, \eta(t) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}(t, \bar{q}, \dot{\bar{q}}) \, \dot{\eta}(t) \right\} \, dt}<br />

If we try to express the \eta(t) in terms of the trial functions and the extremal curve, we get:

<br /> \eta(t) = q(t; \alpha = 1) - \bar{q}(t) \equiv \delta q(t)<br />

Notice that the variation of a function of time is again a function of time. We can differentiate it:

<br /> \frac{d}{d t} \delta q(t) = \dot{\eta}(t) = \dot{q}(t; \alpha = 1) - \dot{\bar{q}}(t) = \delta \frac{dq(t)}{d t}<br />

This is the famous rule of exchanging variation and differentiation with respect to the argument of the function. If we also define:

<br /> F&#039;(0) \approx S[q(t; \alpha = 1)] - S[\bar{q}(t)] \equiv \delta S[\bar{q}(t)]<br />

Then, the above derivative may be rewritten as:

<br /> \delta S[q(t)] = \int_{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}{\left[\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}(t, q, \dot{q}) \, \delta q(t) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}(t, q, \dot{q}) \, \delta \dot{q}(t)\right] \, dt}<br />
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top