(Just some recalls)

We have an action on which we want to apply Least action principle.

$$ S=\int_{t_i}^{t_f} L(q,\dot{q},t)dt$$

We assume that $t \mapsto q(t)$ is the function that will extremise the action, thus if we replace :

$$q(t) \rightarrow q(t)+\delta q(t)$$

with $ \delta q(t_i)=\delta q(t_f)=0$

We will have at first order in $\delta q$ the variation of the action that will be zero.

$$ \delta S = \int_{t_i}^{t_f} \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \delta q + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \delta \dot{q} = 0 $$

And we say that because : $ \delta \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{d \delta x}{dt} $, we can integer by part (the boundary term vanish because of (*)): $$ \delta S = \int_{t_i}^{t_f} (\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} )\delta q = 0 $$

My question :

It makes sense to me to say that, as :

$$q(t) \rightarrow q(t)+\delta q(t)$$

then by derivation I will have :

$$\dot{q}(t) \rightarrow \dot{q}(t)+\frac{d}{dt} \delta q(t)$$

We immediately find that $ \delta \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{d \delta x}{dt} $, so it seems to be very general for any transformation.

But my teacher said it could'nt be the case for any transformation. I don't see why ??

What's more, just to understand :

In a Lagrangian, we consider $q(t)$ and $\dot{q}(t)$ as independant variables, because at a given point, if I have a value of a function, its derivative can take any values.

But the functions $q$ and $\dot{q}$ are not independant functions (they are linked by derivative operation).

So, we always have $\delta q(t)$ and $\delta \dot{q}(t)$ that are independant, and to proove that $ \delta \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{d \delta x}{dt} $, we use the "trick" that, the functions associated are not independant.

In a sense, we "go" in the function space where functions are not independent and then we go back in "variable" spaces where they are independent.

Am I right ? And why did my teacher said that $ \delta \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{d \delta x}{dt} $ is not always true, was him wrong?


The $\delta$ "symbol" can be viewed as an operator. When you are talking about variations, what you actially have is a family of curves $$ q_\epsilon(t), $$ where $q_{\epsilon=0}(t)$ is the physically realized curve. If $F[q]$ is a function or functional of the curve, then we write $$\delta F[q]=\frac{d}{d\epsilon}(F[q_\epsilon])|_{\epsilon=0},$$ so in particular, $\delta q(t)=\frac{d}{d\epsilon}q_\epsilon(t)$ at $\epsilon=0$.

Therefore, we have $$\delta \dot{q}(t)=\frac{d}{d\epsilon}(\dot{q}(\epsilon,t))=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\epsilon\partial t}q(\epsilon,t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t\partial\epsilon}q(\epsilon,t), $$ where the $\epsilon$-derivatives are evaluated at 0. We could switch to partials because $\epsilon$ and $t$ are completely independent variables.

So if the function $q(\epsilon,t)=q_\epsilon(t)$ is well-behaved enough to exchange the partials (we take this to be $C^\infty$ usually, so it is), then this identity stands.

One example I know where this is not true is in general relativity, for field-theoretic use of the variational principle. There we use covariant derivatives, and if the metric is the field to be varied, then the variational $\delta$ derivative is not exchangeable with the covariant derivative $\nabla$, because $\nabla$ itself depends on the metric.

  • $\begingroup$ Ok thank you. So if I use "standard" calculus (I mean not tools like covariant derivatives), the commutativity will always be true. Also, was I right to say that $q(t)$ and $\dot{q}(t)$ are independant in the Lagrangian because they are functions evaluated at a given point, and on a point, a function and its derivative are independant. Whereas the whole function $q$ and $\dot{q}$ are not independant. $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Mar 25 '17 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ @user3183950 I would say that $q$ and $\dot{q}$ as variables (without the $t$ dependence, "off-shell" etc.) are independent. On the other hand $q(t)$ and $\dot{q}(t)$ as functions are not independent. Basically, if you learn some differential geometry, you will see that if you have a configuration space $\mathcal{C}$, parametrized by the coordinates $q^i$, then the "velocity phase space" is $T\mathcal{C}$, its tangent bundle. It is parametrized by pairs $(q^i,\dot{q}^i)$. The overdot is then just sloppy notation, these are completely independent variables... $\endgroup$ – Bence Racskó Mar 26 '17 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ @user3183950 ... , if $q^i$ are the sets of all positions the mechanical system can take, then the $\dot{q}^i$s *along with a set of $q^i$-s* are the set of all possible velocities of the mechanical system at the point $q^i$. On the other hand, if you have a curve $\gamma:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathcal{C}$, it also induces a curve in $T\mathcal{C}$ as $\bar{\gamma}(t)=(q^i(t),\dot{q}^i(t))$. THEN these two sets of "variables" are not independent. $\endgroup$ – Bence Racskó Mar 26 '17 at 14:22

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.