When Are Definite Integrals Considered Functionals?

jamie.j1989
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Taken from Emmy Noether's wonderful theorem by Dwight. E Neuenschwander. Page 28

1. Homework Statement

Under what circumstances are these definite integrals functionals;
a) Mechanical work as a particle moves from position a to position b, while acted upon by a force F.

$$W=\int_a^b\boldsymbol{F}\bullet d\boldsymbol{r},\qquad (1)$$

b) The Entropy change ##\Delta S##, in terms of heat ##dQ## added to a system at absolute temperature T, for a change of thermodynamic state from a to b.

$$\Delta S=\int_a^b\frac{dQ}{T},\qquad (2)$$

Homework Equations


A functional ##\Gamma## is a mapping of a well defined set of functions onto the real numbers. And is given by the definite integral

$$\Gamma=\int_a^bL(q^\mu,\dot{q}^\mu,t)dt,\qquad (3)$$
Where L is the Lagrangian of the functional and the label ##\mu## on the generalised coordinates ##q## distinguishes between N dependent variables.

The Attempt at a Solution


For a). From the above definition of ##\Gamma## we can compare (1) and (3), if the force F is compared to the Lagrangian in the functional then it needs to be a function of the independent variable r ?

And similarly for b), if the absolute temperature of the system in (2) is a function of the heat then the definite integral is a functional?

Is it an issue if they aren't functions of a dependent variable ##q## and it's first derivative ##q'## with respect to the independent variable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jamie.j1989 said:
Is it an issue if they aren't functions of a dependent variable q and it's first derivative q' with respect to the independent variable?
In general I don't think so, but it would be hard to get Euler-Lagrange equations then, if the form is not simple.
The definition of 'functional' is quite general. E.g. see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_(mathematics)
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top