Laws of Motion for New Lagrangian: Partial Differential Equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of the laws of motion using a new Lagrangian expressed through partial differential equations. Participants are examining the structure of the equations, identifying errors, and seeking assistance with simplifications and corrections related to the Euler-Lagrange equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a complex equation involving partial derivatives and Lagrangian terms, seeking help with its formulation.
  • Several participants point out inconsistencies in the free indices of the terms presented, suggesting corrections to the notation.
  • Another participant discusses the Euler-Lagrange equation and attempts to derive a correct formulation, but acknowledges previous mistakes in the indices.
  • There is a proposal to simplify the equation by using properties of the Kronecker delta and lowering indices, with varying degrees of success noted by participants.
  • One participant questions whether a specific derivative notation implies a simplification that leads to a particular result, indicating uncertainty about the equivalence of expressions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus, as multiple competing views and interpretations of the equations and their simplifications remain. There is ongoing debate about the correct formulation and simplification of the equations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved mathematical steps and the dependence on correct index notation, which has been a point of contention throughout the discussion.

Maniac_XOX
Messages
86
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
Is it possible to simplify this complicated equation??
$$\partial^\beta F_{\beta\alpha} +\partial^\beta A_\mu A^\mu \delta^\alpha_\sigma \delta^\rho_\beta+\mu^2 A_\alpha = 2A_\mu (\partial_\rho A^\rho) +\frac {4\pi}{c}J_\alpha$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't have the same free indices on each of your terms. There are three free indices on the second one on the left and you have a free ##\mu## instead of ##\alpha## in the first term on the right. Correct your typos and we may be able to help.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Maniac_XOX
Ibix said:
You don't have the same free indices on each of your terms. There are three free indices on the second one on the left and you have a free ##\mu## instead of ##\alpha## in the first term on the right. Correct your typos and we may be able to help.
Hmm you're right, the complicated part where i most def went wrong was finding the euler lagrange equation $$\partial^\beta \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^\beta A^\alpha)}=\frac {\partial L}{\partial A^\alpha}$$
to the following section of the lagrangina i used: ##-\beta A_\mu A^\mu (\partial_\rho A^\rho)##

Need help finding the answer to this.

I found that $$\partial^\beta \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^\beta A^\alpha)}=\partial^\beta(-\beta A_\mu A^\mu \delta^\alpha_\sigma \delta^\rho_\beta)$$

and also that $$\frac {\partial L}{\partial A^\alpha}= -2\beta A_\alpha (\partial_\rho A^\rho) $$

Could u help me out?
 
Maniac_XOX said:
I found that ∂β∂L∂(∂βAα)=∂β(−βAμAμδσαδβρ)
This is quite obviously wrong as you do not have the same free indices on both sides. Can you find your error and/or tell us how you arrive at this?
 
Orodruin said:
This is quite obviously wrong as you do not have the same free indices on both sides. Can you find your error and/or tell us how you arrive at this?
hello yeah i realized actually, I've come to the right equation being $$\partial^\beta(A_\mu A^\mu g_{\rho\sigma} \delta^\sigma_\beta \delta^\rho_\alpha)=(\partial_\rho A^\rho) g_{\mu\gamma} (\delta_\alpha^\gamma A^\mu + A^\gamma \delta^\mu_\alpha)$$ from euler lagrange $$\partial^\beta \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^\beta A^\alpha)}=\frac {\partial L}{\partial A^\alpha}$$
When put inside the whole complete equation it becomes:
$$\partial^\beta F_{\beta\alpha} + \partial^\beta(A_\mu A^\mu g_{\rho\sigma} \delta^\sigma_\beta \delta^\rho_\alpha) + \mu^2 A_\alpha =(\partial_\rho A^\rho) g_{\mu\gamma} (\delta_\alpha^\gamma A^\mu + A^\gamma \delta^\mu_\alpha) + \frac {4\pi}{c} J_\alpha$$
Can you help me simplify this?
 
Last edited:
I would start by using the summation properties of the Kronecker delta.
 
I'd move the ##g_{\mu\lambda}## inside the bracket before following Orodruin's advice.
 
Ibix said:
I'd move the ##g_{\mu\lambda}## inside the bracket before following Orodruin's advice.
Orodruin said:
I would start by using the summation properties of the Kronecker delta.
Okay so I've tried lowering the indices on the right hand side and using the property $$g_{\mu\gamma}g^{\mu\nu}=\delta^\nu_\gamma$$
therefore on the right hand side I get
$$(\partial_\rho A^\rho) (\delta_\gamma^\nu \delta_\alpha^\gamma A_\nu + \delta_\gamma^\lambda \delta^\mu_\alpha A_\lambda) + \frac {4\pi}{c} J_\alpha$$
which should be able to simplify as:
$$(\partial_\rho A^\rho) (\delta_\alpha^\nu A_\nu + \delta_\gamma^\lambda \delta^\mu_\alpha A_\lambda) + \frac {4\pi}{c} J_\alpha$$

Is this correct? If so how do i go from there?
 
The point is that ##g_{\mu\gamma}\delta^\gamma_\alpha=g_{\mu\alpha}##.
 
  • #10
Ibix said:
The point is that ##g_{\mu\gamma}\delta^\gamma_\alpha=g_{\mu\alpha}##.
OH i get it, so i should be getting this$$\partial^\beta F_{\beta\alpha} + \partial^\beta(A_\mu A^\mu g_{\rho\beta} \delta^\rho_\alpha) + \mu^2 A_\alpha =(\partial_\rho A^\rho) (g_{\mu\alpha} A^\mu + g_{\gamma\alpha} A^\gamma) + \frac {4\pi}{c} J_\alpha$$which finally becomes$$\partial^\beta F_{\beta\alpha} + \partial^\beta(A_\mu A^\mu g_{\alpha\beta}) + \mu^2 A_\alpha = (A_\alpha + A_\alpha) + \frac {4\pi}{c} J_\alpha$$
so then the right hand side becomes ##2A_\alpha + \frac {4\pi}{c} J_\alpha## ?
 
  • #11
You seem to have lost a ##\partial_\rho A^\rho## on the right hand side. Otherwise, yes.
 
  • #12
Ibix said:
You seem to have lost a ##\partial_\rho A^\rho## on the right hand side. Otherwise, yes.
Right i forgot that and also ##-\beta## factors on both sides while focusing on the other stuff. A question i have involving the LHS is:
Does ##\partial^\beta(-\beta \times g_{\alpha\beta}A_\mu A^\mu)##
mean the same as $$\frac {\partial (-\beta \times g_{\alpha\beta}A_\mu A^\mu)}{\partial A^\beta}$$ ? Cuz then wouldn't that bit simplify to ##-2\beta A_\alpha## as well?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
615
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K