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.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top