Suppose I have an inertial frame with coordinate $\{q\}$. Now I define another reference frame with coordinate $\{q'(q,\dot q,t)\}$. I obtain the equation of motion in $\{q'\}$ in two different ways:

  1. First obtain the equation of motion in $\{q\}$ by the Euler Lagrange equation $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q}\right)-\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}=0$$ and then rewrite the equation in terms of $\{q'\}$.

  2. First transform $L(q,t)$ to $L'(q',t)=L(q(q',t),t)$ and then obtain the equation of motion $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L'}{\partial \dot q'}\right)-\frac{\partial L'}{\partial q'}=0.$$

Are the two answers just the same?


2 Answers 2


I) The Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations behave covariantly under reparametrizations$^1$ of the form

$$ \tag{1} q^{\prime i}=f^i(q,t),$$

i.e. it is equivalent to reparametrize before or after forming the EL equations.

II) The above property even holds for a Lagrangian $L(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q},\ldots, \frac{d^Nq}{dt^N};t)$ that depends on higher-order time-derivatives, although a higher-order version of Euler-Lagrange equations with higher-order derivatives is needed in such case.

III) However, for a velocity-dependent reparametrization $q^{\prime }=f(q,\dot q,t)$, which OP mentions in his second line (v2), the substitution before or after in general leads to EL eqs. of different orders. We expect that the higher-order EL eqs. to always factorize via the corresponding lower-order EL eqs., so that solutions to the lower-order EL eqs. are also solutions to the higher-order EL eqs. but not vice-versa.

Similarly for acceleration-dependent reparametrizations, etc.

IV) Example: Consider the velocity-dependent reparametrization

$$\tag{2} q^{\prime}~=~q+A \dot{q}, \qquad A>0,$$

of the Lagrangian$^2$

$$\tag{3} L^{\prime}~=~ \frac{1}{2} q^{\prime 2}~=~\frac{1}{2}(q+A \dot{q})^2~\sim~ \frac{1}{2}q^2 +\frac{A^2}{2} \dot{q}^2. $$

(We call $q^{\prime}$ and $q$ the old and new variables, respectively.) Before, the EL equation is of first order in the new variables$^3$

$$\tag{4} 0\approx q^{\prime}~=~q+A \dot{q},$$

with only exponentially decaying solutions. After the reparametrization, the EL equation is of second order

$$\tag{5} 0\approx q- A^2 \ddot{q}~=~(1-A\frac{d}{dt})(q+A \dot{q}),$$

so that it has more solutions. Note however that eq. (5) factorize via (=can be obtained from) eq. (4) by applying a differential operator $1-A\frac{d}{dt}$.


$^1$ There are various standard regularity conditions on a reparametrization (1) such as e.g. invertibility and sufficiently differentiability. The higher jets (velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc) are implicitly assumed to transform in the natural way.

$^2$ The $\sim$ sign means here equal modulo total derivative terms.

$^3$ The $\approx$ sign means here equal modulo the EL equations.

  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanics: So does this contradict the fact that physics should be independent of parametrization? $\endgroup$
    – velut luna
    Commented Jun 11, 2014 at 7:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user139981: it's independent of parametrization, but not independent of geometry: the derivation of the EL equations assumes coordinates that respect the bundle structure, and if you do a transformation that doesn't, you'll get nonsense $\endgroup$
    – Christoph
    Commented Jun 11, 2014 at 7:28

When you change Lagrangian coordinates (but it does not necessarily mean changing reference frame!), as you are dealing with a jet bundle over the real temporal line $\mathbb R$ (equipped with a preferred coordinate $t$ defined up to an additive constant), you have $$t' = t+c\quad, q'^k = q'^k(t,q)\:,\quad \dot{q}'^k = \sum_j\frac{\partial q'^k}{\partial q^j} \dot{q}^j + \frac{\partial q'^k}{\partial t}\:.\tag{1}$$ In particular, as this transformation of coordinates is required to be smooth, invertible, with smooth inverse, it also arises $$\det \left[ \frac{\partial q'^k}{\partial q^j} \right] \neq 0\:,\quad \det \left[ \frac{\partial q^j}{\partial q'^k} \right] \neq 0 \tag{2'}\:.$$ If, as you did, you assume that the Lagrangian function is a scalar, i.e., $${\cal L}'(t',q', \dot{q}') = {\cal L}(t,q, \dot{q})\quad \mbox{where (1) hold,}\tag{2}$$ you can verify the following identity valid on any point of a generic curve (section) $t \mapsto \gamma(t):= (t, q(t), \dot{q}(t))$ (also described with the other coordinate system) $$\left.\left(\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial {\cal L}'}{\partial \dot{q}'^k} -\frac{\partial {\cal L}'}{\partial q'^k}\right)\right|_{\gamma(t)} = \sum_j\left.\frac{\partial q^j}{\partial q'^k}\right|_{\gamma(t)}\left.\left(\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \dot{q}^j} -\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial q^j} \right)\right|_{\gamma(t)} \:,$$ where (2)' holds true.

As a consequence, the curve $t \mapsto \gamma(t):= (t, q(t), \dot{q}(t))$ satisfies Euler-Lagrange equations with respect to ${\cal L}'$ and the coordinates $(t',q', \dot{q}')$ if and only if it verifies Euler-Lagrange equations with respect to ${\cal L}$ and the coordinates $(t,q, \dot{q})$.


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.