Prove d (\delta x) = \delta (d x): Solutions & Tips

  • Thread starter Thread starter praharmitra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the relationship d(δx) = δ(dx) and its generalization d(δf) = δ(df), where f is a function of multiple variables. The original poster seeks assistance in proving these expressions, noting that the definitions of δ and d must be clearly specified, especially in the context of Noether's theorem and quantum field theory. A participant mentions that the distinction between δ and d is crucial, particularly in variational calculus, and references Anderson's work for clarification on the notation. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the mathematical definitions and context to establish the proofs effectively. The need for precise definitions in mathematical expressions is highlighted as essential for clarity in proofs.
praharmitra
Messages
308
Reaction score
1
Proof of something...

I posted this in the calculus section...but no reply... I came across this while studying the most general noether's theorem which I will later apply to quantum field theory. So I am posting this here, hoping that some one would have come across this while studying qft

I was learning noether's theorem and I came up with something that I can't seem to prove.

Prove -

d (\delta x) = \delta (d x)

I was trying to prove the more general expression

d (\delta f) = \delta (d f)

where f( x, y, z, t, ...) is a function of n variables.

If i could prove the first then the second is proved...any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I have never tried to prove it, I thought it should be taken for granted.

now to a mathematician, you have to specify what \delta is I think...

but this is how i think of it:

\delta f(x) = f(x+\delta x) - f(x)

d(\delta f(x)) = d(f(x+\delta x) - f(x)) = \dfrac{df(x+\delta x )}{dx}dx - \dfrac{df(x )}{dx}dx

\delta (df(x)) = <br /> d(f(x+\delta x) - f(x)) = \dfrac{df(x+\delta x )}{dx}dx - \dfrac{df(x )}{dx}dx

But as I said, this is how I see it, I don't think it is a "proof"
 


malawi_glenn said:
I have never tried to prove it, I thought it should be taken for granted.

now to a mathematician, you have to specify what \delta is I think...

but this is how i think of it:

\delta f(x) = f(x+\delta x) - f(x)

d(\delta f(x)) = d(f(x+\delta x) - f(x)) = \dfrac{df(x+\delta x )}{dx}dx - \dfrac{df(x )}{dx}dx

\delta (df(x)) = <br /> d(f(x+\delta x) - f(x)) = \dfrac{df(x+\delta x )}{dx}dx - \dfrac{df(x )}{dx}dx

But as I said, this is how I see it, I don't think it is a "proof"

You are right that one must be careful in specifying what \delta is, particularly in the context of Nother's theorem where \delta L is often used to denote the variational derivtaive of the Lagrangian. For what it's worth, on pages 89 and 90 of Anderson's Principles of Relativity Physics , he takes pains to use a bar over \deltato distinguish between the two uses. Furthermore, he states (without proof) the relationship you just derived. Personally, your argument convinces me (but then I'm a lousy mathematician :smile:)
 


Yeah, most physicsists are louse mathematicians, so am I, but this is the way I convince myself ;-)
 


praharmitra said:
I posted this in the calculus section...but no reply... I came across this while studying the most general noether's theorem which I will later apply to quantum field theory. So I am posting this here, hoping that some one would have come across this while studying qft

I was learning noether's theorem and I came up with something that I can't seem to prove.

Prove -

d (\delta x) = \delta (d x)

I was trying to prove the more general expression

d (\delta f) = \delta (d f)

where f( x, y, z, t, ...) is a function of n variables.

If i could prove the first then the second is proved...any help?
As they have written, it's necessary to specify what \delta f means, but you also have to specify what df means.

Usually, but not always, (or, if you prefer, just "sometimes") \delta f means to compute the variation of a definite integral, varying a function to which the integrand function depends. Example, you have the action S:

S = \int_{t_1} ^{t_2} L[q(t),q&#039;(t),t]\ dt

If you want to compute the variation of S when you varies the function q(t) for every value of t, without changing the extremes of integration, you will write:

\delta S = \delta \int_{t_1} ^{t_2} L[q(t),q&#039;(t),t]\ dt\ =\ \int_{t_1} ^{t_2} \delta L[q(t),q&#039;(t),t]\ dt\ =\ \int_{t_1} ^{t_2}\ [\frac{\partial\ L}{\partial\ q} q&#039;(t)\ +\ \frac{\partial\ L}{\partial\ q&#039;}q&#039;&#039;(t)]\ dt

(If you wanted to prove the Euler-Lagrange equation, you have to fix the values q(t_1) and q(t_2) in the evaluation of that integral).

Now, what does dS mean, in this context? Of course nothing, since it's a number. It has a meaning if, for example, you write:

S(t) = \int_{t_1} ^{t} L[q(\tau),q&#039;(\tau),\tau]\ d\tau

But then you evaluate \delta S in a completely different way (I let it to you as exercise).
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K