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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation of the lowercase delta in the context of functional derivatives as presented in Hamilton's principle. Participants explore the meaning and equivalence of different definitions of the delta operator in relation to variational calculus and classical dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the meaning of the equation involving the lowercase delta in the context of Hamilton's principle.
  • Another participant identifies the notation as a functional derivative but notes limited personal experience with it.
  • A third participant suggests that the linked article contains explanations that may clarify the notation but emphasizes the need for careful reading.
  • Further, a participant discusses the equivalence of definitions of the delta operator from Wikipedia and a textbook, highlighting confusion regarding the role of the perturbation function.
  • The participant presents a comparison between the definitions from Wikipedia and Thornton and Marion's book, questioning the presence of the differential dα in the latter's approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing levels of understanding regarding the notation and its implications, with no consensus reached on the equivalence of the definitions or the correct interpretation of the delta operator.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the definitions of the delta operator and its application in different contexts, as well as the interpretation of perturbation functions in relation to variational calculus.

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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K