1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

QFT Classical string intro

  1. Jul 11, 2008 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    I'm starting QFT and many books I've started to read start with the introduction of a field in a classical string model

    with a Lagrange equation

    [tex]L(q,\dot{q}) = \sum[\frac{m}{2}\dot{q}_{j}^{2}-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j}-q_{j+1})^{2}][/tex]

    the equation of motion becomes

    [tex]m \ddot{q_j}-k(q_{j+1}-2q_j + q_{j-1}) = 0[/tex]

    my question is how do we get this equation of motion its a discrete derivative but I recognize this as the 3 point second derivative formula, but Lagrange formulation is only first order for the potential part

    [tex]f'' = \frac{f(x+h)-2f(x)+f(x-h)}{h^2}[/tex]

    any help?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 11, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you remember from classical mechanics, the equations of motion formed from the Lagrangian will always give you [itex]n[/itex] second order differential equations for a system with [itex]n[/itex] degrees of freedom.

    [tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}_i}\right) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}[/tex]
  4. Jul 11, 2008 #3
    I agree with you on that however the second order only appears on the

    [tex] \frac{d}{dt}(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q_i}}) [/tex]

    the potential term is only first order so how do I evaluate

    [tex] \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}[/tex] to give

    \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j}-q_{j+1})^{2}) = k(q_{j+1}-2q_j + q_{j-1})
  5. Jul 11, 2008 #4

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you get for

    [tex] \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}[/tex]


    L = \sum_j \left[\frac{m}{2}\dot{q}_{j}^{2}-\frac{k}{2} \left(q_{j}-q_{j+1} \right)^{2} \right] ?
  6. Jul 11, 2008 #5
    i dont know thats exactly what I'm asking...


    \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_j} = -k(q_j-q_{j+1}) (1-\frac{\partial}{\partial q_j}q_{j+1})

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2008
  7. Jul 11, 2008 #6
    There are two terms that have [tex]q_j[/tex] in them because of the sum. You are taking the derivative of:
    [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j}-q_{j+1})^{2}-\frac{k}{2}(q_{j-1}-q_{j})^{2})\equiv -k(q_{j}-q_{j+1})+k(q_{j-1}-q_{j}) \equiv k(q_{j-1}-2q_{j}+q_{j+1})[/tex].
    I hope that helps
  8. Jul 11, 2008 #7

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Careful; in my post the derivative was with respect to [itex]i[/itex] and the sum is over [itex]j[/itex]. Let me expand on what badphysicist wrote. Use

    [tex]\frac{\partial q_j}{\partial q_i} = \delta_{ij}.[/tex]

    For example, [itex] \partial x / \partial x = 1[/itex] and [itex] \partial y / \partial x = 0.[/itex]

    After differentiating, there is still a sum over [itex]j[/itex], i.e.,

    [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} \sum_j = \sum_j \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i},[/tex]

    but, because of the [itex]\delta[/itex]'s, all but a few terms will be zero.
  9. Jul 11, 2008 #8
    Oh yeah, I see the typo I made. Here's the corrected version..
    [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(-\frac{k}{2}(q_{i}-q_{i+1})^{2}-\frac{k}{2}(q_{i-1}-q_{i})^{2})\equiv -k(q_{i}-q_{i+1})+k(q_{i-1}-q_{j}) \equiv k(q_{i-1}-2q_{i}+q_{i+1})[/tex]
  10. Jul 12, 2008 #9
    thanks that definitely helps I didn't think of the sum thanks again
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook