Question about notation: lowercase delta in what appears to be a derivative

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers around the notation of the lowercase delta (δ) in the context of functional derivatives, specifically in the equation \(\frac{\delta \mathcal{S}}{\delta \mathbf{q}(t)}=0\). Participants confirm that this notation represents a functional derivative, which is similar to a normal derivative but is taken with respect to a function rather than a variable. The confusion arises from comparing definitions in Wikipedia and the book "Classical Dynamics" by Thornton and Marion, particularly regarding the equivalence of the δ operator and the role of perturbations in the definitions provided.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of functional derivatives
  • Familiarity with Hamilton's principle
  • Knowledge of perturbation theory
  • Basic concepts of calculus, particularly multivariable calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of functional derivatives in detail
  • Review Hamilton's principle and its mathematical formulation
  • Explore perturbation theory in classical mechanics
  • Analyze examples of functional derivatives in physics literature
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying classical mechanics and mathematical physics, as well as anyone interested in advanced calculus and its applications in theoretical frameworks.

Just a nobody
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton's_principle#Mathematical_formulation", I ran across a notation I'm not familiar with. The part I'm unsure about is:

\frac{\delta \mathcal{S}}{\delta \mathbf{q}(t)}=0

In the context of the article, what is the meaning of that equation?

Thanks!

(My math background goes up to multivariable calculus.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The article you linked to explains it, well sort of. Just keep reading that article, reread until you understand. The answers are there.

The sentence after the expression you quote talks about it.
 
The rest of the article leads me to believe that it's just like a normal derivative, except that it's being taken with respect to a function instead of a variable.


I should have mentioned this in my original post, but part of my confusion is also coming from a book I have (Classical Dynamics by Thornton and Marion), which says:

\frac{\partial \mathcal{S}}{\partial \alpha} d \alpha \equiv \delta \mathcal{S}

where

\mathcal{S}(\alpha) = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \! L(\mathbf{q}(\alpha, t), \dot{\mathbf{q}}(\alpha, t); t) \, dt

and

\mathbf{q}(\alpha, t) = \mathbf{q}(0, t) + \alpha \eta(t)

and

\eta(t) is a function such that \eta(t_1) = \eta(t_2) = 0​


I'm having trouble seeing how these two definitions of the \delta operator are equivalent. Thornton and Marion's \eta(t) seems to be the same as Wikipedia's \boldsymbol\varepsilon(t).

Does the following look correct?


Let f be a function f(x(t)).

Approaching from the Wikipedia side:

Let \varepsilon(t) be a small perturbation from x(t).

\delta f = f(x(t) + \varepsilon(t)) = \varepsilon(t) \frac{\partial f}{\partial x(t)}

Approaching from the Thornton and Marion side:

x(t) = x(0, t); x(\alpha, t) = x(0, t) + \alpha \eta(t)

\delta f = \frac{\partial f}{\partial \alpha} d \alpha = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x(t)} \frac{\partial x(t)}{\partial \alpha} d \alpha = \eta(t) \frac{\partial f}{\partial x(t)} d \alpha​

I'm not sure what to do with that d \alpha in the Thornton and Marion approach. Should that be there?
 
Relativistic Momentum, Mass, and Energy Momentum and mass (...), the classic equations for conserving momentum and energy are not adequate for the analysis of high-speed collisions. (...) The momentum of a particle moving with velocity ##v## is given by $$p=\cfrac{mv}{\sqrt{1-(v^2/c^2)}}\qquad{R-10}$$ ENERGY In relativistic mechanics, as in classic mechanics, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of the momentum of the particle. Considering one-dimensional...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
28K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K