3
$\begingroup$

I am assuming a very simple case, where there is only a mass $m$ with position $x$ under an external force $F$. we know that the Lagrangian takes the form $L = (1/2) m \dot{x}^2$ from which equations of motion follow as $$\frac{d}{d t} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}= m \ddot{x} = F\tag{1}$$ respectively.

Now, consider a coordinate transformation $$y(t) = \frac{x(t)}{n(t)} + \int_0^t\frac{x(\tau)\dot{n}(\tau)}{n^2(\tau)} d\tau\tag{2}$$ which yields $$\dot{y}(t)=\frac{\dot{x}(t)}{n(t)}.\tag{3}$$ I am wondering what is wrong with the following derivation if I want to find the equations of motion through Euler-Lagrange equation in this new coordinate system:

  • The external force can be mapped to new coordinate system by the equivalence of virtual work $F_\text{new} = n(t) F$.

  • The Lagrangian can be expressed in the new frame as $L=(1/2) m (\dot{y}(t) n(t))^2$.

  • Therefore, the EL equation is obtained as $$\frac{d}{d t} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{y}} =m n^2(t) \ddot{y}(t)+ 2m \dot{n}(t) n(t) \dot{y}(t)= F_\text{new},\tag{4}$$ which doesn't seem correct to me, since a simple substitution into the equation of motion directly gives $$m n^2(t) \ddot{y} + m \dot{n} n(t) \dot{y}(t) = F_\text{new}\tag{5}$$ instead.

I appreciate your ideas about this discrepancy.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$
  1. Let $$ J(t)~:=~\int_{t_i}^t \!dt^{\prime}~F(t^{\prime}) \tag{1}$$ be the external impulse.

  2. OP's system has Lagrangian$^1$ $$L(x,\dot{x},t) ~=~ \frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2 +Fx\qquad\stackrel{\text{Appropriate BCs} }{\Rightarrow}\qquad m\ddot{x}~\approx~F.\tag{2}$$

  3. OP's non-local transformation reads $$ y(t)~:=~\frac{x(t)}{n(t)} + \int_{t_i}^t \!dt^{\prime} \frac{\dot{n}(t^{\prime}) x(t^{\prime})}{n(t^{\prime})^2}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \dot{x}~=~n\dot{y}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad x(t)~=~n(t)y(t)- \int_{t_i}^t \!dt^{\prime}~\dot{n}(t^{\prime}) y(t^{\prime}).\tag{3}$$

  4. We can in principle rewrite the action $$ \int_{t_i}^{t_f}\!dt~ L(x,\dot{x},t)~=~S~~=~\int_{t_i}^{t_f}\!dt~\widetilde{L}(y,\dot{y},t)\tag{4}$$ in the new $y$-variable. The result is $$ \widetilde{L}(y,\dot{y},t) ~=~\frac{m}{2}n^2\dot{y}^2 +\frac{d(n(J\!-\!J(t_f))}{dt}y\qquad\stackrel{\text{Appropriate BCs} }{\Rightarrow}\qquad \frac{d(mn^2\dot{y})}{dt}~\approx~\frac{d(n(J\!-\!J(t_f)))}{dt}.\tag{5}$$

  5. Let us now return to OP's question. The main issue with OP's construction is that the non-local transformation (3) does not necessarily take appropriate BCs for $x$ into appropriate BCs for $y$. However, the 2 EL equations (2) & (5) do agree if we pick the BCs $$ x(t_i)~=~x_i\qquad\text{and}\qquad \dot{x}(t_f)~=~0.\tag{6}$$

--

$^1$ Recall that the derivation of Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations from an stationary action principle is only possible with appropriate boundary conditions (BCs).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thanks. I haven't been able to understand it yet. what do you mean by appropriate boundary condition? can you give an example to non-appropriate BCs? $\endgroup$ – GSecer Jun 13 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jun 13 at 13:11

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.