5
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to get some experience with the least action principle, and for this I chose a simple 1-dimensional problem of a particle moving in some field. The least action principle would then look like:

$$\int_{t_1}^{t_2}(T(v)-U(x))dt=\min$$

So I discretize time into some points and try to minimize the sum:

$$\sum_{i=1}^n (T(v_i)-U(x_i))\Delta t.$$

But I get into some strange results: first, if I don't constrain the system, the sum appears unbounded from below. Well, it's understandable because there can be multiple solutions corresponding to different initial/boundary conditions. OK, I choose some values for $x_1$ and $x_n$ as constraints. But even the sum appears unbounded. Well, I then choose to reduce possible range of $x_i$, and the sum finally can be minimized...

But the result appears complete nonsense. Here's the result for $n=10$, $t_1=0$, $t_2=1$, $|x_i|<5$:

Positions

enter image description here

Velocities

enter image description here

Here velocities don't seem to reflect change in positions.

What am I missing here? Should I add some other constraints, or have I done some simple mistake?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Presumably T(v) is the usual quadratic $\frac{1}{2}mv^2$, but what are you using for U(x)? Also, maybe you are trying to independently vary $v_i,x_i$ without the constraint $v = \frac{dx}{dt}$? $\endgroup$ – adipy Oct 31 '14 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ @adipy I've tried setting $U=0$ first, then recognizing that it doesn't constraint $x_i$ at all, tried $U=1$, $U=x^2$, ..., but the results are basically the same. And indeed, I didn't put such a constraint as $v=\frac{dx}{dt}$, since I never saw any discussion of such constraint in the books (namely, Landau&Lifshitz "Mechanics"). I assumed $x$ and $v$ must vary independently. $\endgroup$ – Ruslan Oct 31 '14 at 15:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, $x$ and $v$ are dependent in the action. For more details, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/885/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 31 '14 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, thanks @Qmechanic, it seems my question is a duplicate of that one then. $\endgroup$ – Ruslan Oct 31 '14 at 15:50
4
$\begingroup$

As said in this answer, velocity and position are not varied independently. Indeed, when deriving Euler-Lagrange equations, we explicitly use the fact that $\delta v=\frac d{dt}\delta x$.

So, when I add the constraint $v_i=\frac{x_{i+1}-x_i}{\Delta t}$, specifying $x_1$ and $x_n$ remains the only additional thing to converge to the solution. For example, setting $U=x^4-4x^3+4.5x^2$, $x_1=0$, $x_n=2.651$ and $n=51$, I get:

Positions:

enter image description here

Velocities:

enter image description here

Here the last point of velocity is wrong, but it's an artifact of the constraint: I've used a right-hand finite difference derivative, which can't be done for $v_n$. This can be fixed by choosing some other difference scheme, but for the purposes of this answer it's an unimportant implementation detail.

What's more important, is that if we choose $x_n>2.651$ in this example, the action appears unbounded from below even with the correct constraints. I believe this is no longer a problem in the implementation, but rather a result from the fact that the action just has to be stationary, but not minimal, so minimization is not a good enough procedure to obtain a true trajectory.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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