Time derivatives in variational calculus

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of time derivatives in variational calculus, specifically regarding the variation of an integral involving a function and its derivatives. Participants explore the implications of treating certain derivatives as constants and the notation used to express dependencies on multiple variables.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the time derivative df(x)/dt is treated as constant when taking the variation of an integral, suggesting it should be variationally derived.
  • Another participant points out that if f is a function of only x, then df(x)/dt would equal zero, implying a need for clarification on the dependencies of f.
  • Some participants argue that if x depends on t, then df(x)/dt should not be zero, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the variables involved.
  • There is a request for a clearer problem statement to facilitate better responses, with some participants expressing frustration over the lack of detail provided in the original post.
  • A participant mentions that the integral in question involves time-dependent terms but is not integrated over time, which complicates the application of variational calculus.
  • Another participant suggests treating the time derivative as another field in the integrand if x and t are independent variables.
  • A later post introduces the concept of kinetic energy and its relation to the variational derivative, seeking guidance on how to approach this specific problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the treatment of time derivatives in the context of variational calculus, with multiple competing views on the dependencies of the variables and the clarity of the problem statement. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct approach to the original question.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of the problem statement and the assumptions regarding the relationships between the variables x and t. The discussion highlights the need for precise notation and definitions in variational calculus.

feynman1
Messages
435
Reaction score
29
Taking the variation w.r.t f(x) of the integral over some x domain of F[f(x), f'(x), df(x)/dt], why doesn't df(x)/dt need to be taken a variational derivative and is treated as if it were constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you provide some more context about what problem you are working on or what class this came from?

These kinds of details help us decide on the level of response.
 
jedishrfu said:
Can you provide some more context about what problem you are working on or what class this came from?

These kinds of details help us decide on the level of response.
Physics problem. It's one of taking the variation of an energy of an object with energy density F in the OP varying in space. f(x) can be a displacement, x can be a coordinate. df(x)/dt can be a speed. Clear?
 
feynman1 said:
Taking the variation w.r.t f(x) of the integral over some x domain of F[f(x), f'(x), df(x)/dt], why doesn't df(x)/dt need to be taken a variational derivative and is treated as if it were constant?
From your notation, ##f## appears to be a function of only one variable; namely, x. In that case ##\frac{d(f(x))}{dt} = 0##.
For ##f## to have nonzero (partial) derivatives wrt x and t, it should use this notation: ##f(x, t)##. Then ##\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = f_x((x, t)## and ##\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = f_t((x, t)## would make sense.
 
Last edited:
Mark44 said:
From your notation, ##f## appears to be a function of only one variable; namely, x. In that case ##\frac{d(f(x))}{dt} = 0##.
For ##f## to have nonzero (partial) derivatives wrt x and t, it should use this notation: ##f(x, t)##. Then ##\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = f_x((x, t)## and ##\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = f_t((x, t)## would make sense.
right because I couldn't put a dot on top of f(x).
 
Mark44 said:
##f## appears to be a function of only one variable; namely, x. In that case ##\frac{d(f(x))}{dt} = 0##.
Well, not if ##x## itself depends on ##t##.

To @feynman1: could you point us to a suitable reference? I'm not yet sure what you are asking.
 
ergospherical said:
Well, not if ##x## itself depends on ##t##.

To @feynman1: could you point us to a suitable reference? I'm not yet sure what you are asking.
Sorry there's no direct reference as it's a work in progress. Physics problem. It's one of taking the variation of an energy of an object with energy density F in the OP varying in space. f(x,t) can be a displacement, x is a fixed coordinate not dependent on t. df(x,t)/dt can be a speed. Clear?
 
Not clear at all, sorry. I can't help until there's a clear problem statement.
 
  • #10
I’m well aware of the calculus of variations! What I mean is that you have not adequately stated your problem.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, Hamiltonian and Mark44
  • #11
ergospherical said:
Well, not if x itself depends on t.
Which would show up in a clearly posed question. If someone writes "f(x)" without anything further, the reasonable assumption is that f depends only on x, with no relationship to t.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ergospherical and feynman1
  • #12
Mark44 said:
Which would show up in a clearly posed question. If someone writes "f(x)" without anything further, the reasonable assumption is that f depends only on x, with no relationship to t.
sorry unable to edit the OP any more
 
  • #13
ergospherical said:
I’m well aware of the calculus of variations! What I mean is that you have not adequately stated your problem.
only difference from trivial cases: the integrand has time dependent terms but the integral isn't over time, which isn't covered by variational calculus. Clear?
 
  • #14
feynman1 said:
[...] because I couldn't put a dot on top of f(x). [...] only difference from trivial cases: the integrand has time dependent terms but the integral isn't over time, which isn't covered by variational calculus. Clear?
No, not clear. You said "Physics Problem" more than once, but with no further detail, as if we're supposed to know clairvoyantly which physics scenario you're talking about. If the integral isn't over time (but assuming ##t## and ##x## are independent variables), then you treat ##g(x,t) := \dot f(x,t)## as simply another field in the integrand.

[Aside: You need to spell out your specific situation/problem explicitly. If you won't put more effort into composing your questions, why should other people put more effort into helping you? ]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and Hamiltonian
  • #15
strangerep said:
[Aside: You need to spell out your specific situation/problem explicitly. If you won't put more effort into composing your questions, why should other people put more effort into helping you? ]
This...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #16
v(x,t) is velocity, x is position, t is time. Kinetic energy of a body~ a volume integral of v(x,t)*v(x,t) over a domain (x). The time rate of the kinetic energy thus~ a volume integral of ##v(x,t)v_t(x, t)##. How to take the variational derivative of this kinetic energy rate w.r.t v(x,t)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K