Vector Calculus Question in Lagrangian Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a question about the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for a particle in an electromagnetic field, specifically regarding the transition to index notation. The user expresses confusion about the third term in the equation, questioning whether the summation over indices is implied and pointing out a discrepancy in their own calculations. A participant clarifies that the original equation incorrectly uses a partial time derivative instead of a total time derivative for the vector potential. Ultimately, the user realizes their mistake stemmed from misunderstanding the distinction between total and partial derivatives, which led to incorrect interpretations of the equations.
Travis091
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hi guys. I hope this isn't a bad place to post my question, which is:

I'm reading some lecture notes on Lagrangian mechanics, and we've just derived the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for a particle in an electromagnetic field. It reads:

m \ddot{\vec{r}} = -\frac{e}{c} \frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}-e\nabla \phi(\vec{r})+ \frac{e}{c} \nabla (\dot{\vec{r}}\cdot \vec{A})

(A and phi are the vector and scalar potentials, respectively). Now the author switches to index notation, and I get lost in the process. The author gives:

<br /> m \ddot{r}^a = - \frac{e}{c} \frac{\partial A^a}{\partial t} - e \frac{\partial \phi(\vec{r})}{\partial r^a} + \frac{e}{c} \left( \frac{\partial A^b}{\partial r^a} - \frac{\partial A^a}{\partial r^b}\right) \dot{r}^b<br />

My problem is with the third term above. Is the summation over b implied? I thought that it is bad form to repeat a summation index three or more times. Also, if we are to look at the a-th component of the gradient of the inner product, it should be:

<br /> \left(\nabla (\dot{\vec{r}}.\vec{A})\right)_a = \left(\nabla (\dot{r}_i A^i)\right)_a=\frac{\partial}{\partial r^a} \left ( \dot{r}_i A^i \right) = \dot{r_i}\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial r^a}<br />

which is clearly not equal to the text. I have a feeling I'm doing something stupid, and it would be great if someone can point out my mistake(s).

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes I tried using the identity which you mention:

\nabla(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{B}) = (\mathbf{A} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{B} + (\mathbf{B} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{A} + \mathbf{A} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{B}) + \mathbf{B} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{A})

so:
\nabla(\mathbf{\dot{r}} \cdot \mathbf{A}) = (\mathbf{\dot{r}} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{A} + (\mathbf{A} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{\dot{r}} + \mathbf{\dot{r}} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{A}) + \mathbf{A} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{\dot{r}})

but I didn't get anywhere. I could have made a mistake while using this identity, I will try again later, but more importantly, why is my expression for the third term incorrect? That is what I would really like to understand. I want to clear out my misconception.
 
Travis091 said:
Hi guys. I hope this isn't a bad place to post my question, which is:

I'm reading some lecture notes on Lagrangian mechanics, and we've just derived the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for a particle in an electromagnetic field. It reads:

m \ddot{\vec{r}} = -\frac{e}{c} \frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}-e\nabla \phi(\vec{r})+ \frac{e}{c} \nabla (\dot{\vec{r}}\cdot \vec{A})

Thanks.

This equation is wrong. Instead of the partial time derivative, there should be total time derivative of the vector potential. Then you can use
\frac{d \vec{ A }}{ d t } = \frac{ \partial \vec{ A } }{ \partial t } + ( \vec{ v } \cdot \vec{ \nabla } ) \vec{ A }
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
That's it! Many thanks for your help. It was actually my mistake, the author skipped a step and jumped from the Lagrangian to the second equation above. I filled the missing step incorrectly, mixing up the total and partial derivatives.
 
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