I More rigorous Euler-Lagrange derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the variational principle in mechanics, particularly the meaning of the variation symbol ##\delta## in the context of the action functional ##S##. It clarifies that ##\delta q## represents a deviation from the actual path taken by a particle in configuration space, and that the variation is taken over all paths with fixed endpoints. The relationship between ##\delta q## and the derivatives is explored, emphasizing that ##\delta \dot{q} = \mathrm{d}_t \delta q##. The derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations is confirmed through the integration of the variation, leading to the conclusion that the term in parentheses must vanish for all functions ##\delta q(t)##. The conversation also touches on resources for further reading, including papers and textbooks on analytical mechanics.
romsofia
Gold Member
Messages
599
Reaction score
330
TL;DR Summary
What really is the “variation”?
Sorry if there are other threads on this, but after a discussion with a friend on this (im in the mountains, so no books, and my googlefu isn't helping), I realize that my understanding of the variational principles arent exactly... great! So, maybe some one can help.

Start with a functional defined by: ##S= \int L(q(t), \dot{q}(t), t) dt## where ##\dot{q} = \frac{dq}{dt} ## we “vary” the functional, in the following manner: ##\delta S = \int (\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \delta q + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \delta \dot{q})dt##

And so, from there i know how to get the EL to pop out from integration and some arguments about boundary conditions. The issue he had, and where I am also lacking is, what REALLY is that ##\delta##?

I've always treated it similar to a derivative, and essentially all we are doing is taking a chain rule when doing ##\delta S##, but then i can't really justify the ##\delta q## since the chain rule in that spot would be ##\frac{dq}{dt}##.

Basic question that I should know(it is just calculus of variations), but better to finally learn it properly, than go off by handwaving because my muscle memory can write it down properly!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##\delta q## is simply a deviation of the path in configuration space from the trajectory of the particle, which is defined as the stationary path of the action.

In Hamilton's principle the variation is over all paths with fixed endpoints ##q(t_1)## and ##q(t_2)##, and time is not varied. From this you get
$$\delta \dot{q}=\mathrm{d}_t \delta q.$$
Then you have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\delta S &= \delta \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t L(q,\dot{q},t)\\
&=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t \left (\delta q \cdot \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} + \delta \dot{q} \cdot \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \right) \\
&=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t \delta q \cdot \left ( \cdot \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} - \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \right) + \delta q(t_2) \cdot \left . \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\right|_{t=t_2} - \delta q(t_1) \cdot \left . \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \right |_{t=t_1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since by definition ##\delta q(t_1)=\delta q(t_2)=0## the boundary terms vanish and you finally get
$$\delta S=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t \delta q \cdot \left ( \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} - \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \right).$$
Since this must hold for all functions ##\delta q(t)## the term in the parentheses must vanish, which leads to the Euler-Lagrange Equations,
$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} = \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}.$$
For a mathematically rigorous treatment of analytical mechanics, see

V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer (1989)
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes romsofia and Delta2
romsofia said:
And so, from there i know how to get the EL to pop out from integration and some arguments about boundary conditions. The issue he had, and where I am also lacking is, what REALLY is that ##\delta##?

So, as you pointed out, the action is a functional of paths in the ##(q,\dot{q})## space, the tangent bundle of configuration space.

A path is a function from the real numbers to this tangent bundle ##\mathbb{R}\ni t\rightarrow(q(t),\dot{q}(t))##.
We can define a slightly different path by ##q^{'}(t)=q(t)+\varepsilon\eta(t)## so that ##\dot{q}^{'}(t)=\dot{q}(t)+\varepsilon\dot{\eta}(t)##. Notice that ##\delta q=\varepsilon\eta(t)## and ##\delta\dot{q}=\varepsilon\dot{\eta}(t)## represents how far away is the new path from the old one i.e., how much we have deformed the original path.

We can now ask, what is the value of the action for this new path? We can find it by a Taylor expansion of the Lagrangian
$$
S' =\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}L(q^{'}(t),\dot{q}^{'}(t))dt=\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}L(q(t)+\varepsilon\eta(t),\dot{q}(t)+\varepsilon\dot{\eta}(t))dt
\approx\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}dt\left[L(q(t),\dot{q}(t))+\varepsilon\eta(t)\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}+\varepsilon\dot{\eta}(t))\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\right]dt$$

So, we can conclude that the first order variation of the action is
$$\delta S=\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\left(\varepsilon\eta(t)\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}+\varepsilon\dot{\eta}(t))\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\right)dt=\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}\delta q+\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta\dot{q}\right)dt$$
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and romsofia
Thanks for your help, I'll read them in more detail, and see if I have any questions! The discussion of configuration spaces is bringing back memories of non-holonomic constraints for some reason!
 
If it comes to non-holonomic constraints, don't use the distorted 3rd edition of Goldstein's textbook. The 2nd edition is fine though.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top