What Is the Dot in \(\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}\)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter help1please
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computing Term
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the notation \(\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}\) within the context of Lagrangian mechanics, specifically regarding the differentiation of the Lagrangian \(L\) with respect to the generalized velocities \(\dot{q}\). Participants are exploring the mathematical implications of this notation and its derivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning whether \(\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}\) represents the dot product or the square of the velocity. They are also discussing the implications of using implied summation notation and the appearance of the Kronecker delta in the differentiation process.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the differentiation process and notation. Some have clarified the presence of the negative sign and the use of the product rule, while others are still grappling with the mathematical transitions and the significance of the Kronecker delta.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the notation and the proper application of differentiation rules, as well as the need for clarity on the assumptions underlying the equations presented.

help1please
Messages
167
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



L is the langrangian

[tex]\dot{q}[/tex] is the velocity with time derivative

Homework Equations



[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} = -M \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1- \dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}}} \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q})[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



A few questions here. My work is telling me to calculate the right hand term

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q})[/tex]

First of all, what is the dot in [tex]\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}[/tex], is this just the dot product which would be the velocity squared?

Secondly, the work demonstrates how to calculate the right hand side as

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}) = -\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(\dot{q}_j \cdot \dot{q}_j) = -\delta_ij \dot{q}_j - \dot{q}_j \delta_ij[/tex]

This part has me totally confused. What exactly is happening here... ? How do you get, mathematically from

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q})[/tex]

then subscripts of j appear and a negative sign shows up..

[tex]-\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(\dot{q}_j \cdot \dot{q}_j)[/tex]

Then what exactly is this

[tex]-\delta_ij \dot{q}_j - \dot{q}_j \delta_ij[/tex]

Can some one help me please, it has me stuck in my tracks... :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
help1please said:

Homework Statement



L is the langrangian

[tex]\dot{q}[/tex] is the velocity with time derivative

Homework Equations



[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} = -M \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1- \dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}}} \frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q})[/tex]
There's something wrong with your equation. You can't have a free index on one side of the equation and not the other.
You're also missing dots all over the place in this post.

All of the derivatives in your post should be with respect to ##\dot{q}_i##, not ##q## or ##q_i##.

The Attempt at a Solution



A few questions here. My work is telling me to calculate the right hand term

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q})[/tex]

First of all, what is the dot in [tex]\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}[/tex], is this just the dot product which would be the velocity squared?
Yes.

Secondly, the work demonstrates how to calculate the right hand side as

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}) = -\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(\dot{q}_j \cdot \dot{q}_j) = -\delta_ij \dot{q}_j - \dot{q}_j \delta_ij[/tex]

This part has me totally confused. What exactly is happening here... ? How do you get, mathematically from

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} (-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q})[/tex]

then subscripts of j appear and a negative sign shows up..

[tex]-\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i}(\dot{q}_j \cdot \dot{q}_j)[/tex]
I'm not sure why you're confused about the negative sign. It was there right from the beginning, no?

You're using implied-summation notation. Repeated indices indicate they should be summed over. In "regular" notation, you'd write
$$\dot{\vec{q}}\cdot\dot{\vec{q}} = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \dot{q}_j \dot{q}_j.$$ Now what do you get if you differentiate this sum with respect to ##\dot{q}_i##? Keep in mind that the ##\dot{q}_i##'s are independent. Try it and compare what you get to the expression below.
Then what exactly is this

[tex]-\delta_ij \dot{q}_j - \dot{q}_j \delta_ij[/tex]

Can someone help me please? It has me stuck in my tracks... :(
If you don't understand what ##\delta_{ij}## means, look up "Kronecker delta."
 
Last edited:
vela said:
There's something wrong with your equation. You can't have a free index on one side of the equation and not the other.
You're also missing dots all over the place in this post.

All of the derivatives in your post should be with respect to ##\dot{q}_i##, not ##q## or ##q_i##. Yes.I'm not sure why you're confused about the negative sign. It was there right from the beginning, no?

You're using implied-summation notation. Repeated indices indicate they should be summed over. In "regular" notation, you'd write
$$\dot{\vec{q}}\cdot\dot{\vec{q}} = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \dot{q}_j \dot{q}_j.$$ Now what do you get if you differentiate this sum with respect to ##\dot{q}_i##? Keep in mind that the ##\dot{q}_i##'s are independent. Try it and compare what you get to the expression below.

If you don't understand what ##\delta_{ij}## means, look up "Kronecker delta."

Yes, I now realize that negative sign was there all along my fault.

No, I am not asking about the Kronacker delta, I am asking why are we taking it away in this form? How do we end up with this

[tex]\delta_{ij}\dot{q} - \dot{q}\delta_{ij}[/tex]

How does one end up with that mathematically? Is there a significant name for this form? How does one get from [tex]\dot{q}\cdot \dot{q}[tex]to that above?[/tex][/tex]
 
You calculate the derivative. There's nothing tricky going on here really other than the notation. Just differentiate ##\dot{\vec{q}}\cdot\dot{\vec{q}}## with respect to ##\dot{q}_i##.
 
vela said:
You calculate the derivative. There's nothing tricky going on here really other than the notation. Just differentiate ##\dot{\vec{q}}\cdot\dot{\vec{q}}## with respect to ##\dot{q}_i##.

Just differentiation? I take it I will use the product rule?
 
Yes, since you're differentiating a sum of products, you need to use the product rule.
 
See when I read this and thought, ''ok product rule'' I thought everything was sorted, but I when to calculate it but I am a bit lost.

I got as far as [tex]-\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q} = -\dot{q}' \cdot \dot{q} - \dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}'[/tex]

But what am I doing now exactly? As I said before, I know what the Kronacker Delta is, but why has it been attached to both sides of this?

[tex]-\delta_{ij}\dot{q}_j - \dot{q}_j \delta_{ij}[/tex]

What is the meaning behind this? I understand why the coefficient of 2 shows up, this is because the derivative of [tex]\dot{q}^2[/tex] is [tex]2\dot{q}[/tex], but why the delta sign?
 
Hi Vela, just in case you forgot about my thread, above I had some more questions!

Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K