3
$\begingroup$

The Euler-Lagrange equation for particles is given by

$$ \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q},\tag{1}$$

and for fields it is

$$ \partial_{\mu} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial_{\mu}\phi)} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi}.\tag{2} $$

Comparing the two equations, the first one has a total time derivative $\frac{d}{dt}$ but the other one appears to have partial derivatives $\partial_{\mu}$. These derivatives come from integration by parts in the derivation of the EL equation. I was wondering why the field version has partial derivatives and the particle version has total derivatives?

I have also seen for the specific example of 1 dimensional waves on a string, the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation is

$$ \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \left(\frac{d\phi}{dt}\right)} + \frac{d}{dx} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \left(\frac{d\phi}{dx}\right)} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi}, \tag{3}$$

which uses total derivatives, so I am a bit confused.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Particularly for your last equation, you should link to the specific example where you saw that notation, for context. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Mar 27 '17 at 11:31
  • $\begingroup$ I read it in Quantum Field Theory for the gifted amatuer $\endgroup$ – Matt0410 Mar 27 '17 at 11:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In the first case, the only variable $q(t)$ is assumed to depend on is $t$ so that $\partial_t q = \frac{dq}{dt}$. $\endgroup$ – Prahar Mar 27 '17 at 13:34
4
$\begingroup$
  1. No, one of the partial derivative symbol $\partial_{\mu}$ in OP's equation (2) is not correct if it is supposed to mean partial derivatives. The correct Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations read $$ \tag{2'} 0~\approx~\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi^{\alpha}} ~=~\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \phi^{\alpha}} - \sum_{\mu} \color{Red}{\frac{ d}{dx^{\mu}}} \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\partial_{\mu}\phi^{\alpha})} + \ldots,$$ where the $\approx$ symbol means equality modulo eoms, and the ellipsis $\ldots$ denotes possible higher derivative terms. Here $$ \color{Red}{\frac{ d}{dx^{\mu}}}~=~ \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\mu}} +\sum_{\alpha}(\partial_{\mu}\phi^{\alpha})\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi^{\alpha}} + \sum_{\alpha, \nu} (\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\phi^{\alpha})\frac{\partial }{\partial (\partial_{\nu}\phi^{\alpha})} + \ldots $$ is the $\color{Red}{\text{total spacetime derivative}}$ rather than a partial spacetime derivative. See also this and this related Phys.SE posts.

  2. Let us mention for completeness that the other appearance of the partial derivative symbol $\partial_{\mu}$ in OP's equation (2) is correct. It may be replaced with a total spacetime derivative $\color{Red}{d_{\mu}}$, since $\partial_{\mu}\phi\equiv\color{Red}{d_{\mu}}\phi$ by definition, cf. OP's eq. (3).

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

First, let's make sure we understand the notion of the total derivative in the particle case: The Lagrangian itself is a real-valued function $L(q,\dot{q},t)$, where $q$ and $\dot{q}$ are treated as independent variables, cf. this question or this answer of mine. When we speak of a "total" derivative in the context of the Euler-Lagrangian equations, we actually mean that we take a path $q(t)$, compute its time-derivative $\dot{q}(t)$, then consider the function $L(q(t),\dot{q}(t),t)$, whose only free arugment is now $t$, and then take the derivative w.r.t. $t$. To speak of "total" or "partial" derivative is a handwavy way to distinguish between the Lagrangian as a function of independent variables $q,\dot{q},t$ (this is a partial case) and the Lagrangian as a function of time after a time-dependent path has been plugged in (this is the "total" case). So, the expression $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}$ means: Take the Lagrangian as a function of $q,\dot{q},t$, differentiate with respect to $\dot{q}$, then plug a path $q(t)$ into the resulting function, then differentiate with respect to $t$.

So, in the field case, we have a function $\mathcal{L}(\phi,\partial_\mu\phi,x)$ that just treats $\phi$ and $\partial_\mu \phi$ as real numbers, and of which we take the "partial" derivatives $\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu \phi)}$. This is just the derivative of this function with respect to its second argument, nothing special, just like in the particle case. Now, once again, you can plug in a field $\phi(x)$ into this function, and you get a function $\mathcal{L}(\phi(x),\partial_\mu \phi(x),x)$ that is now just a function of $x$, and you can differentiate this object. Like the $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}$ in the particle case, the $\partial_\mu$ in the field version of the Euler-Lagrange equation is supposed to act in this way: You differentiate the function $\mathcal{L}$ with respect to its second argument, then plug in a field $\phi(x)$, then differentiate the resulting function w.r.t. $x^\mu$ - so the derivative is indeed a "total" one.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For 1 Parameter functions: $\partial_t = \frac{d}{dt}$, e.g $\dot{q} = \frac{d q}{dt} = \partial_t q$. However, you should not interpret $\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}$ as an ordinary partial derivative. The Euler-Lagrange-equation (ELE) arises from a variational principle $\delta S = 0$ and is therefore derived with functional derivatives.

We get the rule that one can form a partial differential equation from $\delta S = 0$ by treating $L(q,\dot{q},t)$ as a function of the independent variables $q,\dot{q},t$ and then applying the ELE. This doesn't allow you to interpret $L=L(q,\partial_t q, t)$ as a function of $q,t$ alone, or else the ELE derivation would have failed in the first place. The fact that for 1 parameter functions you get an ordinary differential equation is just coincidence because 1 parameter partial differential equations are ordinary differential equations.

So in fact, the ELE are partial differantial equations for fields $\phi(t,x,y,z)$ and particle trajectories $q(t)$. In the later chase however, this happens to be ordinary differential equations, too.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But in the particle case, $L$ depends on $q(t)$, $\dot{q}(t)$ and $t$ so there is a difference between $\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} $ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} $ $\endgroup$ – Matt0410 Mar 27 '17 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Matt0410: You should interpret it as $L(q(t),\dot{q}(t),f(t))$ where f is the trivial function $f(t) = t$. This is why I wrote: "you should not interpret $\frac{d L}{\partial \dot{q}}$ as an ordinary partial derivative". L is rather a function with 3 placeholders for functions $q,\dot{q},f$ that are treated in a variational principle in the same way because then $\frac{d}{dt} L(q(t),\dot{q}(t),f(t)) = \partial_t L(q(t),\dot{q}(t),f(t))$ $\endgroup$ – image Mar 27 '17 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Matt0410: This is also why you cannot commute $\partial_\mu$ with the "functional derivatives" $\frac{\partial}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)}$. Because the later is derived from a variational principle with functional derivatives. $\endgroup$ – image Mar 27 '17 at 12:06

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.