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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter praharmitra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the relationship d(δx) = δ(dx) and its generalization d(δf) = δ(df), where f(x, y, z, t, ...) is a function of multiple variables. Participants emphasize the necessity of clearly defining δ and its context, particularly in relation to Noether's theorem and variational calculus. The conversation references Anderson's "Principles of Relativity Physics," which discusses the distinction between δ and its applications in physics. The proof remains unverified, highlighting the complexities involved in mathematical definitions within physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Noether's theorem and its implications in physics.
  • Familiarity with variational calculus and the concept of variational derivatives.
  • Knowledge of differential calculus, specifically the differentiation of functions of multiple variables.
  • Basic comprehension of Lagrangian mechanics and the action principle.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the variational derivative and its applications in Lagrangian mechanics.
  • Review Anderson's "Principles of Relativity Physics" for insights on δ and its notation.
  • Explore the Euler-Lagrange equation and its derivation from variational principles.
  • Investigate the implications of Noether's theorem in quantum field theory.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying advanced calculus, particularly those interested in the applications of Noether's theorem and variational calculus in theoretical physics.

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).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K