5

I am reading a book on analytical mechanics on Lagrangian. I get a bit idea on the method: we can use any coordinates and write down the kinetic energy $T$ and potential $V$ in terms of the general coordinates, so the Lagrangian is given as $L=T-U$. For one example, let says the Lagrangian is $$ L = \frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2 + mb\dot{\phi}\dot{x}\cos\phi $$ here $m$ is the mass, $b$ is constant, $x$ and $\phi$ are the general coordinates. As told in the text, to write the equation of motion, we have to calculate $\partial L / \partial x$. My question is: if we plug in the $L$ and calculate the derivative of $x$ on $L$, should we got zero? i.e.

$$ \frac{\partial\dot{x}^2}{\partial x} = 0 ? $$

if it is not zero, what is that? and what's the physical significance of $\frac{\partial\dot{x}}{\partial x}$ ?

joshphysics
  • 57,120
user1285419
  • 2,363

4 Answers4

8

Your confusion really just comes down to understanding the notation that is widely used for partial derivatives.

For simplicity, I'll restrict the discussion to a system with one coordinate degree of freedom $x$. In this case, the Lagrangian is a real valued function of two real variables which we suggestively label by the symbols $x$ and $\dot x$. Mathematically, we would write $L:U\to\mathbb R$ where $U\subset \mathbb R^2$. Let's consider the simple example $$ L(x, \dot x) = ax^2+b\dot x^2 $$ When we write the expression $$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x}(x, \dot x) $$ this is an instruction to differentiate the function $L$ with respect to its second argument (because we labeled the second argument $\dot x$) and then to evaluate the resulting function on the pair $(x, \dot x)$. But we just as well could have written $$ \partial_2L(x, \dot x) $$ To represent the same expression. Both of these expressions simply mean that we imagine holding the first argument of the function constant, and we take the derivative of the resulting function with respect to what remains. In the case above, this therefore means that $$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot x}(x, \dot x) = 2b\dot x $$ because $x$ labels the first argument, and taking a partial derivative with respect to the second argument means that we treat $x$ like a constant whose derivative is therefore $0$. It it in this sense that the partial of $x^2$ with respect to $\dot x$ is zero.

So to recap, when we are taking these derivatives, we just keep in mind that the symbols $x$ and $\dot x$ are just labels for the different arguments of the Lagrangian.

You might ask, however, "if $x$ and $\dot x$ are just labels, then what relation do they have to position and velocity?" The answer is that after we have treated them as labels for the arguments of $L$ in order to take the appropriate derivatives, we then evaluate the resulting expressions on a $(x(t), \dot x(t))$, the position and velocity of a curve at time $t$, to obtain equations of motion.

For example, if you take the example of $L$ that I started with, we get $$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial x}(x, \dot x) = 2 ax, \qquad \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x}(x, \dot x) = 2b\dot x $$ now we evaluate these expressions on $(x(t), \dot x(t))$ to obtain $$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial x}(x(t), \dot x(t)) = 2 ax(t), \qquad \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x}(x(t), \dot x(t)) = 2b\dot x(t) $$ so that the Euler-Lagrange equations become $$ 0=\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x}(x(t), \dot x(t))\right] - \frac{\partial L}{\partial x}(x(t), \dot x(t)) =\frac{d}{dt}(2b\dot x(t)) - 2ax(t) $$ which gives $$ b\ddot x(t) = a x(t) $$ Once you understand all of this, you can (and should) dispense with the long-winded notation I used here for illustrative purposes, and you should make no error in using the abbreviated notation in your original post.

joshphysics
  • 57,120
5

This is a somewhat unintuitive step in the Lagrangian formalism and the Euler-Lagrange equations. Note that you are taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to some coordinate. Strictly speaking, when you take a partial derivative you should specify what you are holding constant.

Although we usually think of a coordinate and its time derivative as being related, when applying the Euler-Lagrange formalism we vary the generalized coordinates and velocities independently. This means that $$\frac{\partial \dot q}{\partial q} = 0, \ \ \frac{\partial q}{\partial \dot q} =0,$$ for any generalized coordinate $q$.

So, in your example, $\big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}\big)_{\dot x} = 0$, in fact. Here, I am using the parentheses to note explicitly that $\dot x$ is held constant.

1

I'll just add a general comment on the confusion regarding independent variables.

A Lagrangian is a function of two sets of independent variables - generalized coordinates and generalized velocities. When the solution (i.e., the motion) is given under a given set of initial conditions, of course, a relation is established between them - the generalized velocity is known when the generalized coordinate is given. But that does not mean these two are not independent variables. They are as independent as two independent variables $x,y$ satisfying a pair of linear simultaneous equations. When you look at one of the equations, of course, you express $x$ as a function of $y$, but that doesn't mean that $x$ and $y$ are not independent variables. Similarly, when you solve them you know the numerical values for both $x$ and $y$, that doesn't mean $x$ and $y$ are not variables, but numbers. Here, in this case, $x$ and $\dot{x}$ are independent in the same sense - in principle, a particle can be at any $x$, completely independent of its velocity, and vise versa - in general, they are not dependent on each other (unlike $x$ and $x^2$, say). But of course, when we solve for them and get a motion $x(t)$,$\dot{x}(t)$ for a particular case, they become related.

AD-Phys
  • 11
  • Thank you for the above post. If we have a Lagrangian that has $q$ and $q^2$, is it possible to consider $q$ and $q^2$ as independent and relable them as $q_1:=q$ and $q_2:=q^2$? After all, in linear algebra $x$ and $x^2$ are considered independent... – mr. curious Nov 13 '20 at 12:32
  • 1
    @mr.curious: Thanks for the question, though I already answered it "(unlike $x$ and $x^2$, say)". The word independence should not be used without context. In the above context, $q$ and $q^2$ are {\it not} independent. But, for example, in linear algebra, if $x$ and $x^2$ are operators on a linear space, their means are not independent, but their higher moments are. Hence they are independent. Here we are talking about classical degrees of freedom in deterministic dynamics. – AD-Phys Nov 14 '20 at 13:17
  • What if we have a Lagrangian $a x^2 + b\dot{x}^2 + c x + d \dot{x}$. What stops me from relabelling them into $x := q_1,x^2:=q_2$ and then after calculations are done insert them back. Also can elaborate a little more on the statistical argument you made in the above. Sounds like an interesting argument... – mr. curious Nov 16 '20 at 11:16
  • 1
    @mr. curious: If can't take $q_1 = x$ and $q_2 = x^2$ and call them independent generalized coordinates because in this formulation two independent coordinates should be allowed to have independent variations. For example, you should be allowed to construct paths caring only $q_1$ and not $q_2.$ If one is $x$ and the other is $x^2$, then you cannot vary them independently. – AD-Phys Nov 17 '20 at 12:17
  • 1
    There is no statistical argument behind this. I was just giving an example of a context where $x$ and $x^2$ can be independent. I said this is possible if $x$ is not a simple deterministic variable, but, say, is an expectation value that depends on a distribution. In that case, $x$ and $x^2$ are independent in the sense that knowing $x$ does not tell what $x^2$ will be. This isn't the case for generalized coordinates of a classical mechanics system. Hope that's quenches your curiosity :). – AD-Phys Nov 17 '20 at 12:27
  • 1
    Sorry, maybe I was a bit vague. In the above what I meant is the following. Let $x$ be an operator, whose expectation value $$ depends on a distribution. Then $x$ and $x^2$ are independent in the sense that knowing the expectation value of one doesn't tell the expectation value of the other. – AD-Phys Nov 17 '20 at 12:38
  • Thank you, my curiosity is quenched :). However, I still have a remark: If we have a simple polynomial with real numbers, then one can still span orthogonal spaces with $1+x+x^2+...$. And if we know $x$, we also know $x^2$. But we can span an orthogonal space with $1+x+x^2$ as our three axis similar as $(x,y,z)$. We can move along the "$1$" axis, without changing anything in the "$x$" axis and we can move along the "$x$" axis without changing in the "$x^2$" axis. What if one relables $q_2=x^2$ and treats it as formally independent and then constraint it with $q_2 - x^2=0$. – mr. curious Nov 17 '20 at 14:05
  • 1
    Ah! Yet another example of independence between $x$ and $x^2$! In a power series, of course, $x,$ $x^2,$ ... $x^n$ are "independent" basis of expansion - you can assign coefficients of $x^m$ and $x^n$ totally independently to construct any polynomial (even non-polynomial functions). This just uploads my previous caveat - before you talk about the independence of two entities, look at the context :) – AD-Phys Nov 18 '20 at 15:10
0

Use the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion!

Faraday
  • 255