2
$\begingroup$

I want to extremize $$\int dt \frac{\sqrt{\dot x ^2 + \dot y ^2}}{y}.$$

I have thought that, since the Lagrangian $L(y, \dot y, \dot x)$ is $t$ dependent only implicitly, that i could use the fact that $$L(z,z') \implies L - z' \partial L / \partial z' = c.$$

So $$L - y' \partial L / \partial y' = c_1,$$ $$L - x' \partial L / \partial x' = c_2$$

But these two equations, when we substitute the values and arrange it, give us $$dy/dx = c_3 \implies y = c_3 x +b.$$

This is certainly wrong, the answer is supposed to be a circle equation. Even so we can solve it another way, i am still confused: Why did we got the wrong answer using the above two equation? If, for example, the Lagrangian was $\int dt \sqrt{\dot x ^2 + \dot y ^2}$, we could use the above approach to get the answer (in this case, a line is the right answer).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I find it hard to tell what you think you did because the notation in your question is confusing (and this is presumably what is confusing you): What is the $z$ in the "fact" that you're citing? Where does this fact come from? Why do you think this fact holds for both $x$ and $y$ (and why is the time derivative suddenly $x'$ and not $\dot{x}$)? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 10:39

3 Answers 3

3
$\begingroup$

Hint: Noether's theorem yields that $$\begin{align} L\text{ has no }&x\text{-dependence} \cr \quad& \Downarrow&\quad\cr \text{momentum } &p_x \text{ is conserved}, \end{align} $$ and $$\begin{align} L\text{ has no explicit }&t\text{-dependence} \cr \quad& \Downarrow&\quad\cr \text{energy } p_x\dot{x}+p_y\dot{y}&-L\text{ is conserved}. \end{align} $$

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

with

$$L=\frac{\sqrt{\dot x^2+\dot y^2}}{y}$$ and because L is not a function of x you obtain that

$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x}=\frac{\dot x}{\sqrt{\dot x^2+\dot y^2}\,y}=\text{constant}$$

from here

$$\frac{\dot x}{\sqrt{\dot x^2+\dot y^2}\,y}\mapsto \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\right)^2}\,y(x)}=\text{constant}$$

or $$\sqrt{1+\frac{dy}{dx}^2}\,y(x)=k^2$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ My intension was to show that you don’t need the 𝙱𝚎𝚕𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚖𝚒 𝙸𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚝𝚢 to solve this problem what is wrong with this ? $\endgroup$
    – Eli
    Commented Apr 21, 2022 at 6:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ok, I agree. I end up to the same differential equation as yours but I must admit that your approach is better than mine since it's based on the Physics of the problem while mine is based on Mathematics.+1 $\endgroup$
    – Voulkos
    Commented Apr 21, 2022 at 6:44
0
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\bl}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}} \newcommand{\e}{\bl=} \newcommand{\p}{\bl+} \newcommand{\m}{\bl-} \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mathbf {#1}} \newcommand{\mc}[1]{\mathcal {#1}} \newcommand{\mr}[1]{\mathrm {#1}} \newcommand{\gr}{\bl>} \newcommand{\les}{\bl<} \newcommand{\greq}{\bl\ge} \newcommand{\leseq}{\bl\le} \newcommand{\plr}[1]{\left(#1\right)} \newcommand{\blr}[1]{\left[#1\right]} \newcommand{\vlr}[1]{\left\vert#1\right\vert} \newcommand{\Vlr}[1]{\left\Vert#1\right\Vert} \newcommand{\lara}[1]{\left\langle#1\right\rangle} \newcommand{\lav}[1]{\left\langle#1\right|} \newcommand{\vra}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle} \newcommand{\lavra}[2]{\left\langle#1\right|\left#2\right\rangle} \newcommand{\lavvra}[3]{\left\langle#1\right|#2\left|#3\right\rangle} \newcommand{\vp}{\vphantom{\dfrac{a}{b}}} \newcommand{\Vp}[1]{\vphantom{#1}} \newcommand{\hp}[1]{\hphantom{#1}} \newcommand{\x}{\bl\times} \newcommand{\ox}{\bl\otimes} \newcommand{\ol}[1]{\overline{#1}} \newcommand{\qqlraqq}{\qquad\bl{-\!\!\!-\!\!\!-\!\!\!\longrightarrow}\qquad} \newcommand{\qqLraqq}{\qquad\boldsymbol{\e\!\e\!\e\!\e\!\Longrightarrow}\qquad} \newcommand{\tl}[1]{\tag{#1}\label{#1}} \newcommand{\hebl}{\bl{=\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!==\!=\!=\!=}}$

$\hebl$

The Beltrami Identity:

If the Lagrangian $\:L\plr{y,y',x}\:$ of a system does not depend explicitly on $\:x$, that is \begin{equation} \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial x}\e 0 \tl{01} \end{equation} then from the Euler-Lagrange equation \begin{equation} \dfrac{\mr d}{\mr dx}\plr{\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial y'}}\m\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial y}\e 0 \tl{02} \end{equation} we have \begin{equation} \dfrac{\mr d}{\mr dx}\plr{y'\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial y'}\m L}\e 0 \tl{03} \end{equation} so \begin{equation} \boxed{\:\:y'\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial y'}\m L\e \texttt{constant}\:\:}\quad \texttt{(Beltrami Identity)} \tl{04} \end{equation}

$\hebl$

For your Lagrangian \begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{\sqrt{\dot x ^2 \p \dot y ^2}}{y}\mr dt & \e \frac{\sqrt{1\p\plr{\dfrac{\dot y}{\dot x}}^2}}{y}\dot x\,\mr dt\e\frac{\sqrt{1\p\plr{\dfrac{\mr dy/\mr dt}{\mr dx/\mr dt}}^2}}{y}\dfrac{\mr dx}{\mr dt}\,\mr dt\\ &\e\frac{\sqrt{1\p\plr{\dfrac{\mr dy}{\mr dx}}^2}}{y}\mr dx\e\frac{\sqrt{1\p y'^{2}}}{y}\mr dx\\ \end{split} \tl{05} \end{equation} that is \begin{equation} L\plr{y,y',x}\e\frac{\sqrt{1\p y'^{2}}}{y} \tl{06} \end{equation}

Using the Lagrangian \eqref{06} we could find the $\:x\m$parametric representation $\:\blr{x,y\plr{x}}\:$ of the curve directly bypassing its $\:t\m$parametric representation $\:\blr{x\plr{t},y\plr{t}}$, that is the equations of the motion.

$\hebl$

Hint for the Solution

Insert the Lagrangian \eqref{06} in the Beltrami Identity \eqref{04} to find \begin{equation} f\plr{y,y'\e\dfrac{\mr dy}{\mr dx}}\e a\e \texttt{positive constant} \tl{H-01} \end{equation} Solve equation \eqref{H-01} with respect to $\:\mr dx$ to find \begin{equation} \mr dx\e g\plr{y}\mr dy \tl{H-02} \end{equation} In equation \eqref{H-02} make a proper convenient change from the variable $\:y\:$ to an angle variable $\:\theta\:$ \begin{equation} y\e h\plr{\theta} \tl{H-03} \end{equation} Convert equation \eqref{H-02} to something like that \begin{equation} \mr dx\e q\plr{\theta}\mr d\theta \tl{H-04} \end{equation} Integrate equation \eqref{H-04} to have \begin{equation} x\e u\plr{\theta} \tl{H-05} \end{equation} Equations \eqref{H-03} and \eqref{H-05} give a $\:\theta\m$parametric representation of the motion orbit.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Billy Istiak : I think that my new detailed equation \eqref{05} answers your question. $\endgroup$
    – Voulkos
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 6:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Billy Istiak : No, my Lagrangian $L(y,y',x)$ of equation \eqref{06} is independent of x $$\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0 $$ $\endgroup$
    – Voulkos
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 7:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.