4

In Lagrangian mechanics we have the Euler-Lagrange equations, which are defined as $$\frac{d}{dt}\Bigg(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_j}\Bigg) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_j} = 0,\quad j = 1, \ldots, n.$$

In Hamiltonian mechanics we have that $$\dot{q}_j = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_j}, \quad \dot{p}_j = -\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_j}, \quad j = 1,\ldots n,$$ where $$p_i = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}.$$

What has been confusing me is that the coordinates $p,\,\dot{p},\,q,\,\dot{q}$ are all actually paths, meaning they are functions of time. Thus the Lagrangian $L$ and the Hamiltonian $H$ are actually functionals, and I would suspect that we need to use a variational derivative instead of an ordinary one above.

However despite this some textbooks on classical mechanics treat $p,\,\dot{p},\,q,\,\dot{q}$ as coordinates and not as paths, so they take derivatives and partial derivatives and not variational derivatives.

I am getting confused between these two viewpoints. How is it justified to take derivatives as if $p,\,\dot{p},\,q,\,\dot{q}$ were coordinates and not functions? When should one use the variational derivative instead?

J.G.
  • 25,615
CBBAM
  • 4,632

3 Answers3

5

The Lagrangian is a function, not a functional. The action is a functional, and is defined as

$$S[q; t_0,t_1] = \int_{t_0}^{t_1} L\big(q(t), \dot q(t), t\big) \mathrm dt$$ The partial derivatives which appear in the Euler-Lagrange equations are slot derivatives. One might write $$\big(\partial_1 L\big) (a,b,c) = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{L(a+\epsilon,b,c)-L(a,b,c)}{\epsilon}$$ $$\big(\partial_2 L\big) (a,b,c) = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{L(a,b+\epsilon,c)-L(a,b,c)}{\epsilon}$$ $$\big(\partial_3 L\big) (a,b,c) = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{L(a,b,c+\epsilon)-L(a,b,c)}{\epsilon}$$

Demanding that the action be stationary for arbitrary smooth perturbations $\eta$ which vanish at $t_0$ and $t_1$ is to demand that $$\frac{d}{d\epsilon} S[q+\epsilon\eta;t_0,t_1] \bigg|_{\epsilon=0} $$ $$= \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \left[ \big(\partial_1L\big)(q(t), \dot q(t),t) -\frac{d}{dt} \big(\partial_2 L\big)(q(t),\dot q(t), t)\right]\eta(t)\ \mathrm dt = 0$$ which implies that the integrand must vanish - hence the EL equations.

From a terminology standpoint, if we can write $$\frac{d}{d\epsilon}S[q+\epsilon \eta;t_0,t_1] = \int_{t_0}^{t_1}\bigg(\ldots\bigg) \eta(t) \mathrm dt $$ then we call $\big(\ldots\big)$ the variational (or functional) derivative of $S$, and typically write it as $\delta S/\delta q$ or something similar.


The confusion arises when we write $$\big(\partial_1L\big)(q(t),\dot q(t), t) \equiv \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} $$ This is confusing, but as the number of "slots" of $L$ increases, there is really no viable alternative that isn't notationally horrific. You just have to understand what's being talked about.

J.G.
  • 25,615
Albatross
  • 72,909
4

All the problem, in my view, arises form the fact that the EL equations are introduced in a too sloppy way. (The variational approach makes even more obscure an obscure setup.)

Actually,

  1. The coordinates $\dot{q}^k$ and $q^k$ are independent and they become dependent only "on-shell", i.e., on the curve that solvese the equations of motion. Only then $\dot{q}$ becomes the time derivative of $q$ and this should be expliticly stated!

  2. The EL equations are 2n not n: in coordinatess one looks for a curve $$\gamma : I \ni t \mapsto (t, q(t),\dot{q}(t)) \in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^n$$ such that (notice the order of the various operations, the partial derivatives are computed before evaluating the Lagrangian on the curve) $$\left \{ \begin{array}{rl} \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{\gamma(t)} \frac{\partial L(t,q, \dot{q})}{\partial \dot{q}^k} -\left.\frac{\partial L(t,q, \dot{q})}{\partial q^k}\right|_{\gamma(t)}&=0\\ \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{\gamma(t)} q^k &= \left.\dot{q}^k\right|_{\gamma(t)} \end{array} \right.$$ I stress that these equations are 1st order ordinary differential equations.

In particular the Lagrangian is a function of $2n+1$ independent variables: $$t, q^1,\ldots, q^n, \dot{q}^1, \ldots, \dot{q}^n$$

A natural way to globally fix all this approach is the use of a jet bundle viewing the spacetime of kinetic states, locally determined by natural coordinates $(t, q^1,\ldots, q^n, \dot{q}^1, \ldots, \dot{q}^n)$ a as a fiber bundle over the real line.

In natural charts over the spacetime of kinetic states the transformation maps are

$$\overline{t} = t+c $$ $$\overline{q}^k = \overline{q}^k(t,q)$$ $$ \dot{\overline{q}}^k =\frac{\partial \overline{q}^k}{\partial t}+ \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial \overline{q}^k }{\partial q^j} \dot{q}^j$$ These charts form a preferred atlas on the spacetime of kinetic states and define it. Notice that, in the transformation laws above, there is no given curve to use just because $\dot{q}^k$ is not the derivative, along a curve, of $q^k$. It is an independent variable, the said relation holds on the solutions of the motion equations however.

The EL equations written as above, when assuming that the Lagrangian is a scalar field on the spacetime of kinetic states, are invariant under the transformation laws written above.

A less elaborate way is to use the tengent bundle of the configuration space, but this approach is limitative, because also the configuration space does not exist individually, but is a canonical fiber of a fiber bundle: the configuration spacetime.

This approach, as it removes all notational ambiguities, makes very clear the passage to the Hamiltonian formalism.

The Hamiltonian formalism assumes tha there is a space, the spacetime of phases whose local coordinates are, in fact, $(t,q,p)$. These natural charts form a preferred atlas on the spacetime of phases and define it.

These local coordinates are associated to the Lagrangian local coordinates $(t,q,\dot{q})$ by means of the Legendre diffeomorphism when a Lagrangian $L(t,q,\dot{q}))$ is given

$$Leg: (t,q,\dot{q}) \to (t(t,q,\dot{q}), q((t,q,\dot{q})), p((t,q,\dot{q}))$$ defined as $$t=t$$ $$ q^k= q^k$$ $$p_k = \frac{\partial L(t,q,\dot{q})}{\partial \dot{q}^k}\:.$$

The basic fact is now that $$\gamma : I \ni t \mapsto (t, q(t),\dot{q}(t)) \in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^n$$ satisfies the EL equations written above if and only if $$\hat{\gamma}(t) := Leg(\gamma(t))$$ satisfies the Hamiltonian equations $$\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{\hat{\gamma}(t)}q^k = \left.\frac{\partial H(t,q,p)}{\partial p_k}\right|_{\hat{\gamma}(t)}$$ $$\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{\hat{\gamma}(t)} p_k= -\left.\frac{\partial H(t,q,p)}{\partial q^k}\right|_{\hat{\gamma}(t)}$$ Notice that I accurately avoided to indicate the temporal derivatives with the dot, since the dot denotes a Lagrangian coordinate! For instance $\dot{p}$ simply does not exist in this formalism: in particular it is not a Hamiltonian coordinate!

The Hamiltonian function $H(t,q,p)$ is constructed out of $L(t,q, \dot{q})$ by inverting $Leg$ in particular so that $\dot{q}^k=\dot{q}^k(t,q,p)$ is a known function: $$H(t,q,p) := \sum_{k=1}^np_k \dot{q}^k(t,q,p)- L(t,q, \dot{q}(t,q,p))$$

The spacetime of phases has a nature that is independent of any Lagrangian one uses. Natural local coordinate systems are connected by the transformation laws

$$\overline{t} = t+c $$ $$\overline{q}^k = \overline{q}^k(t,q)$$ $$ \overline{p}_k =\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial q^j }{\partial \overline{q}^k} p_j\:.$$

These relations guarantee that the Legendre transformation is actually global and not only local.

2
  1. On one hand, the Lagrangian $L(q,v,t)$ is a function of the position$^1$ $q$, the velocity $v$ and the time $t$.

  2. On the other hand, the Lagrangian action $$S[q] ~:=~ \int_{t_i}^{t_f}\mathrm{d}t \ L(q(t),\dot{q}(t),t)$$ is a functional of the whole whole (perhaps virtual) path$^1$ $q:[t_i,t_f]\to\mathbb{R}^n$.

For more details, see e.g. my related Phys.SE answer here. There is a similar story for the Hamiltonian formulation.

--

$^1$ Notabene: Be aware that in the physics literature the same notation is often used for a function, a value of a function, and the codomain variable.

Qmechanic
  • 220,844