Space-time symmetry (Langrangian Mechanics)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving a conserved quantity related to space-time symmetry in Lagrangian mechanics. The user is trying to understand the transition from one integral expression to another and how the term O(ε²) arises. It is clarified that the O(ε²) term results from a Taylor expansion in ε, and there is a suggestion that a factor is missing in the final expression. The user confirms that using the Taylor expansion leads to the correct answer but seeks validation of their mathematical approach. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately applying Taylor expansion techniques in deriving results in Lagrangian mechanics.
vertices
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
When deriving the conserved quantity in the case of space-time symmetry, a line in my notes goes from:

\int{dt.(1+\epsilon\dot{\xi}).L[q(t+\epsilon\xi)+{\delta}q(t+\epsilon\xi)]} - \int{dt.L[q(t)+{\delta}q(t)]}

where L is the Lagrangian and \xi is a function of time and both integrals are over the same time interval, to:

\int{\dot{\xi}L+\xi\frac{dL}{dt}+O(\epsilon^{2})}

I can't see how these two lines equal one another.

How does the O(\epsilon^{2}) come about?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That would be the result of a Taylor expansion in \epsilon. Also I think you're missing a factor in the last expression, and that it should be
\int \mathrm{d}t\,\epsilon\biggl(\dot{\xi}L + \xi\frac{\mathrm{d}L}{\mathrm{d}t}\biggr) + O(\epsilon^2)
 
thanks diazona, much appreciated:

I tried Taylor expansion as you suggested (and I did get the right answer) but I am not sure whether I have done so mathematically correctly or not. Can you check whether or not I am on the right lines...

We have \int{dt.(1+\epsilon\dot{\xi(t)}).L[q(t+\epsilon\xi(t))+{\delta}q(t+\epsilon\xi(t))]} - \int{dt.L[q(t)+{\delta}q(t)]}

start with L[q(t+\epsilon\xi(t))]

if we first Taylor expand the bit in parenthesis (ie. q(t+\epsilon\xi(t))) we get

q(t+\epsilon\xi(t))=q(t)+\frac{{\partial}q(t)}{{\partial}t}\epsilon\xi(t)+...

thereforeL[q(t+\epsilon\xi(t))=L[q(t)+\frac{{\partial}q(t)}{{\partial}t}\epsilon\xi(t)+...]

This is equal to:

L(q)+\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}q}\frac{{\partial}q(t)}{{\partial}t}\epsilon\xi(t)+...

but

\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}q}\frac{{\partial}q(t)}{{\partial}t} = \frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}t} (CANCELLING the 'dq's)

So:

L[q(t+\epsilon\xi(t))]=L(q)+\frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}t}\epsilon\xi(t)+smaller terms]

Thanks.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top