3
$\begingroup$

I am aware of theoretical conditions for the existence of certain Euler-Lagrange equations (variational bicomplex etc...) but I am nevertheless trying by hand, to find a lagrangian that would yield some complicated equation. It seems at the moment that my difficulties may be reduced to a 1 dimensional problem, obtaining a term of the form $$t \frac{d \varphi }{d t}$$

Can one find a Lagrangian whose Euler-Lagrange equation yields such a term, and only this one?

Some calculations:

  • First of all I allow myself a Lagrangian that depends on higher than 1rst order derivatives, the Euler-Lagrange equation then takes the form $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \varphi} - \partial_t \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_t \varphi)} + \partial_{tt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_{tt} \varphi)} - \partial_{ttt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_{ttt} \varphi)} + \cdots = 0$$

  • a term of the form $t^2\, \varphi\, \partial_{tt} \varphi$ gives $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \varphi} = t^2\, \partial_{tt} \varphi\quad \text{and}\quad \partial_{tt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_{tt} \varphi)} = \partial_{tt} \big( t^2\, \varphi \big) = \partial_t \big( 2\, t\, \varphi + t^2\, \partial_t \varphi\big)$$ $$= 2\, \varphi + 2\, t\, \partial_t \varphi + 2\, t\, \partial_t \varphi + t^2 \,\partial_{tt} \varphi $$

In all my attemps, every time $t\, \partial_t \varphi$ appears, then so does $t^2 \,\partial_{tt} \varphi $ with the same $1/2$ ratio (don't forget the first term of the Euler-Lagrange equation)

My guess is that it is impossible to get such a term alone, but I am a little disappointed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Out of curiosity: In which context did this equation arise? $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jun 7 '17 at 13:07
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, it's a much bigger equation and I dropped everything (including other partial derivatives) because I felt that only this term was problematic. I'm trying to write the operator associated to the casimir $W^2$ (as Klein-Gordon w.r.t. $P^2$) $\endgroup$ – Noix07 Jun 7 '17 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ I thought about crazy things which actually get me a little confuse. I remember that one of the advantage of the Lagrangian formalism was that the Euler-Lagrange equation does not depend on the choice of coordinate. But I thought about considering $\tilde{\varphi}= \varphi(t^2 /2)$ so that $\tilde{\varphi}' (t)= t \tilde{\varphi(t)} $, can one use this in some way...?? $\endgroup$ – Noix07 Jun 7 '17 at 18:45
5
$\begingroup$

OP is asking if there exists an action term $S$ such that $$ \frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi(t)}~\stackrel{?}{=}~t \frac{d \varphi(t) }{d t}.\tag{A}$$ For consistency, we must then have $$ \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \varphi(t^{\prime})\delta \varphi(t)}~\stackrel{(A)}{=}~t\frac{d }{d t}\delta(t\!-\!t^{\prime}).\tag{B}$$ But eq. (B) is inconsistent, since its left-hand side is symmetric$^1$ under a $t\leftrightarrow t^{\prime}$ exchange, while the distribution on the right-hand side is not. It can be a bit subtle to see the latter. Below follows a perhaps not necessarily simplest, but at least a rigorous and hopefully convincing proof: Apply e.g. a Gaussian test function to the distribution on the right-hand side of eq. (B): $$\iint_{\mathbb{R}^2}\!\mathrm{d}t~\mathrm{d}t^{\prime} ~\exp\left\{-at^2 -a^{\prime}t^{\prime 2}\right\}~t\frac{d }{d t}\delta(t\!-\!t^{\prime}) ~=~-a^{\prime}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{(a+a^{\prime})^3}}. \tag{C}$$ This is not symmetric under an $a\leftrightarrow a^{\prime}$ exchange of the two positive constants $a,a^{\prime}>0$.

So we conclude that such an action term $S$ does not exist. $\Box$

Related Phys.SE posts: Why can't we ascribe a (possibly velocity dependent) potential to a dissipative force?, How do I show that there exists variational/action principle for a given classical system?, and links therein.

--

$^1$ Since OP asks about it in a comment, let us here provide a hopefully instructive example. Consider an action term $$ S~:=~\int\! dt ~L(t), \qquad L(t)~:=~ \frac{t^2}{2} \varphi(t)\frac{d^2 \varphi(t) }{d t^2}.\tag{D}$$ The functional derivative is then $$ \frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi(t)}~\stackrel{(D)}{=}~\varphi(t) + \frac{d}{dt}\left\{t^2 \frac{d\varphi(t) }{d t}\right\} .\tag{E}$$ The second functional derivative is $t\leftrightarrow t^{\prime}$ symmetric: $$\frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \varphi(t^{\prime})\delta \varphi(t)}~\stackrel{(E)}{=}~\delta(t\!-\!t^{\prime}) - \frac{d}{dt}\frac{d}{dt^{\prime}}\left\{tt^{\prime}\delta(t\!-\!t^{\prime})\right\}.\tag{F}$$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have not yet validated the answer because I am still wondering if the r.h.s. is really not symmetric.... $\endgroup$ – Noix07 Jun 7 '17 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ $t\, \delta'(t-t') $ as a distribution with "variable" $t$: let $\psi(t)$ be a test function, evaluating the distribution means to take the derivative, multiply by t and then evaluate everything at $t'$ one obtains $t'\,\psi'(t')$. Exchanging $t$ and $t'$: $\langle t'\, \delta (t'- t), \psi(t')= t\, \psi'(t)$. Or maybe one should still consider it as a distribution in $t$, in which case $\langle t'\, \delta (t'- t), \psi(t)= |1| \times t'\, \psi'(t')$ $\endgroup$ – Noix07 Jun 7 '17 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ It seems indeed that the "Schwarz lemma" holds!! I tried it on a simple Lagrangian. Then for the calculation, I m a little rusted but I find $- \frac{a}{(a+a')^2} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a+a'}}$, nevertheless, i do see that for a n arbitrary test function in two variables, what breaks the symmtry is the fact that one takes a derivative in one of the variable and not on the other one. $\endgroup$ – Noix07 Jun 7 '17 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic Wait!!!... is the following symmetric: take $L(t,\varphi,\cdots) := t^2 \, \varphi\, \partial_{tt} \varphi,\ \frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi (t)} = 2\, \varphi + 4\, t\, \partial_t \varphi + 2\, t^2 \,\partial_{tt} \varphi$ and thus $ \frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi(t')\delta \varphi (t)} = 2\, \delta(t-t') + 4\, t\, \delta ' (t- t') + 2\, t^2 \,\partial_{tt} \delta (t-t')$?? It seems not?! $\endgroup$ – Noix07 Jun 7 '17 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, your above example is symmetric, as it must be. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jun 7 '17 at 18:41

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.