The action is not a well defined function

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wdlang
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the action in classical mechanics, particularly in the context of the harmonic oscillator. Participants explore whether the action can be considered a well-defined function or if it is inherently a functional, and they examine the implications of periodic motion on the definition of action.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the action is not a well-defined function when moving from one state to another in a periodic system like the harmonic oscillator, particularly when the time does not align with the period.
  • Others clarify that the action is a functional, mapping functions to real numbers, and its definition depends on the formulation used (Lagrangian vs. Hamiltonian).
  • Some participants challenge the assertion that the action is ill-defined, providing examples of how the harmonic oscillator returns to the same position at different times, which complicates the argument.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of solutions connecting initial and final states, with some suggesting that valid solutions exist under certain conditions, while others question the assumptions regarding the potential and boundary conditions.
  • Participants note that while the action can be evaluated for various paths, it is the stationary action that corresponds to valid physical trajectories.
  • Some express uncertainty about the implications of periodicity on the action's definition and whether it leads to ill-defined scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the action is well-defined in the context of periodic systems. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the harmonic oscillator's periodicity and the nature of solutions in classical versus relativistic contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their arguments, such as the dependence on boundary conditions and the nature of the potential involved. There are unresolved questions regarding the existence of solutions connecting specified initial and final states.

wdlang
Messages
306
Reaction score
0
The action of moving from q_a to q_b in time t is not a well defined function

for example, consider the harmonic oscillator

if q_a= q_b, then only for t being the multiple of the harmonic oscillator period will the particle return to its initial position

Therefore, for such kind of q_a and q_b, the action is ill-defined for an arbitrary t

but people are always taking the derivatives of the action to the time!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Who does this? Of course the action is not a function but a functional, i.e., it maps from an appropriate space of functions into the real numbers. It also depends on whether you work in the Lagrangian formulation (then the action is a functional over the configuration-space trajectories) or the Hamiltonian formulation (then it's a functional over the phase-space trajectories).
 
wdlang said:
The action of moving from q_a to q_b in time t is not a well defined function

for example, consider the harmonic oscillator

if q_a= q_b, then only for t being the multiple of the harmonic oscillator period will the particle return to its initial position

That's not true. Suppose the particle is undergoing simple harmonic motion

[itex]x = A cos(\omega t + \phi)[/itex]

If [itex]t_1[/itex] and [itex]t_2[/itex] are two different times, then [itex]x(t_1) = x(t_2)[/itex] in the following cases:

[itex]t_1 = t_2 + \dfrac{2 n \pi}{\omega}[/itex]
[itex]t_1 = - t_2 + \dfrac{2 (n \pi - \phi)}{\omega}[/itex]

In the latter case, [itex]t_2 - t_1[/itex] will not be a multiple of the period.
 
stevendaryl said:
That's not true. Suppose the particle is undergoing simple harmonic motion

[itex]x = A cos(\omega t + \phi)[/itex]

If [itex]t_1[/itex] and [itex]t_2[/itex] are two different times, then [itex]x(t_1) = x(t_2)[/itex] in the following cases:

[itex]t_1 = t_2 + \dfrac{2 n \pi}{\omega}[/itex]
[itex]t_1 = - t_2 + \dfrac{2 (n \pi - \phi)}{\omega}[/itex]

In the latter case, [itex]t_2 - t_1[/itex] will not be a multiple of the period.

you are right.

however, t2-t1 still can only take discrete values.
 
wdlang said:
you are right.

however, t2-t1 still can only take discrete values.

No, the constant [itex]\phi[/itex] is arbitrary. By adjusting [itex]\phi[/itex], you can get [itex]t_2 - t_1[/itex] to be anything you like.

I shouldn't say it's arbitrary; it's determined by the boundary conditions. The harmonic oscillator [itex]m \ddot{x} + m \omega^2 x = 0[/itex] has solutions of the form:

[itex]x(t) = A cos(\omega t + \phi)[/itex]

That has two constants, [itex]A[/itex] and [itex]\phi[/itex]. If you pick two times, [itex]t_1[/itex] and [itex]t_2[/itex], and specify that [itex]x(t_1) = x_1[/itex] and [itex]x(t_2) = x_2[/itex], then that uniquely determines [itex]A[/itex] and [itex]\phi[/itex].
 
wdlang said:
The action of moving from q_a to q_b in time t is not a well defined function

Examine this expression for the action for a system with 1 generalized coordinate.

[itex]S = \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \mathcal{L}(q, \dot{q}, t) dt[/itex]

The action is well enough defined for different functions q(t), even ones that aren't valid solutions to the problem I'm trying to solve! To use your example, the action can have a value even for space endpoints q_a and q_b, even when there is no valid solution to the problem which connects q_a and q_b in time t1 - t0.

The valid solutions are the ones for which the action is stationary.

If we find the conditions for the action being stationary, we still haven't specified a particular path q(t) with starting and ending points!

These would be related the the initial conditions.

We may get some differential equations by solving the Euler Lagrange equations, which give us the conditions for which the action is stationary. But differential equations don't specify a single exact solution; there can be more than one function which is a solution to a differential equation. But once you fully specify the initial conditions, the values after time t are going to be set.
 
Last edited:
MisterX said:
Examine this expression for the action for a system with 1 generalized coordinate.

[itex]S = \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \mathcal{L}(q, \dot{q}, t) dt[/itex]

The action is well enough defined for different functions q(t), even ones that aren't valid solutions to the problem I'm trying to solve! To use your example, the action can have a value even for space endpoints q_a and q_b, even when there is no valid solution to the problem which connects q_a and q_b in time t1 - t0.

Hmm. If [itex]t_1 > t_0[/itex] and the potential is not infinite, isn't there always a solution connecting [itex]q_a[/itex] at time [itex]t_0[/itex] to [itex]q_b[/itex] at time [itex]t_1[/itex]? I think there is, in the one-dimensional case, anyway.
 
stevendaryl said:
Hmm. If [itex]t_1 > t_0[/itex] and the potential is not infinite, isn't there always a solution connecting [itex]q_a[/itex] at time [itex]t_0[/itex] to [itex]q_b[/itex] at time [itex]t_1[/itex]? I think there is, in the one-dimensional case, anyway.

Classically, I think there's always a solution, but if we are doing a relativistic solution, the solution might be physically unrealistic (because it requires a massive particle to go faster than light).
 
I don't really understand your point in your original post, the harmonic oscillator is periodic and hence the particle does return to a position after some time, decided by the boundary conditions, don't see why this makes the action functional ill-defined.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K