2
$\begingroup$

I have learned the first and second form of Euler-(Lagrange) equation with no explicit time dependence (the time dependence only implicit on the function to be solved, say $y\left(t\right)$), from Thorton-Marion 5th Edition on Classical Dynamics. I will replace its functional $f\left(y\left(x\right), \frac{d}{dx}y\left(x\right); x\right)$ to this Lagrangian $L$ notation: $$L\left(y\left(t\right), \frac{d}{dt}y\left(t\right); t\right).$$

  1. The first form of Euler-(Lagrange) equation is solved from the Lagrangian $$L\left(y\left(t\right),\dot{y}\left(t\right);t\right)$$ in Chap 6.3, but with $t$ dependence seems to play no role. Thorton-Marion obtains (6.18): $$ \boxed{\frac{\partial L}{\partial y}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{y}}\right)=0} $$

  2. The second form of Euler-(Lagrange) equation is solved from the Lagrangian $L\left(y\left(t\right), \frac{d}{dt}y\left(t\right); t\right)$ in Chap 6.4, but with explicit $t$ dependence does play a role. Thorton-Marion obtains (6.39): $$ \boxed{\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(L-\dot{y}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{y}}\right)=0} $$ But this explicit $t$ dependence form does not give rise to the correct answer for Euler-(Lagrange) equation with explicit time dependence, because Thorton-Marion used (6.18) already to derive this (6.39). So some modification is necessarily required!!!

Question

  • What are the first and second form of Euler-(Lagrange) equation with Lagrangian of explicit time dependence?

  • How to modify and correct the derivations in Thorton-Marion (6.18) and (6.39) to get an Euler-(Lagrange) equation with Lagrangian of explicit time dependent system?

p.s. There is a related post on Lagrange equation with explicit time dependence: How to deal with explicit time dependence of the Lagrangian? But they do not work on the analogous first and second form of Euler-(Lagrange) equation. I hope you can provide some insights or explicit final form of equations.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The second form of the Euler-Lagrange equation can be rewritten as

$$ \frac{dh}{dt}~=~-\frac{\partial L}{\partial t},\tag{EL2}$$

where

$$ h(q,\dot{q},t)~:=~\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\dot{q}^j\frac{\partial }{\partial \dot{q}^j}-1 \right)L(q,\dot{q},t) \tag{h}$$

is the (Lagrangian) energy function. EL2 follows directly from the first form of the Euler-Lagrange equations $$\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^j}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial q^j}~=~0, \qquad j~\in \{1,\ldots, n\},\tag{EL1} $$ for an arbitrary first-order Lagrangian $L(q,\dot{q},t)$ with possible explicit time-dependence.

$\endgroup$
0
3
$\begingroup$

What horrible notation! For an $L$ without expicit time dependence ($L=L(y,\dot y))$, the expression
$$ F= L-\dot y \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot y} $$ obeys $$ \frac{d}{dt}F=0 $$ This first integral is a consequence of the E-L equation $$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial y}- \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot y}\right)=0. $$ It is not not a "second form of te E-L equation". In simple exmaples it is the energy, and it says that energy is conserved for time indepenedent sytems. For one-dimensional systems energy conservation is a useful way of solving the motion.

When there is more than one $y$ there is still a first integral $$ F= L-\sum_i \dot y_1 \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot y_i}, $$ but there is only one, and one energy consrevation is not enough to solve the motion.

Similarly if $L(y,\dot y,t)$ then $$ \frac {d}{dt}F= \frac{\partial L}{\partial t} $$ is a consequence of the usual E-L equation. The E-L equation does not change if there is explicit time dependence.

I suggest you read a better book.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I suspect that the infelicities you're criticizing in the OP's description are more due to the OP than to Thornton & Marion. At least in the fourth edition, the notation used is much nicer: the given equation is written out as$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} - \frac{d}{dx} \left( f - y' \frac{\partial f}{\partial y'} \right) = 0.$$ The authors also put "second form" in scare quotes, presumably to denote that this isn't really a new form of the Euler equation; and they basically say what you say in the discussion in that section. ... $\endgroup$ May 3 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ ... It's possible that this changed in the fifth edition, but I kind of doubt it. Mainly I wanted to defend Marion & Thornton's honor, since it's a pretty good book for intermediate-level classical mechanics (though I usually use Taylor to teach from these days.) $\endgroup$ May 3 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael Seifert. I guess I'm prejudiced..... I've seen some really bad accounts in intro books. I learned the stuff from Synge and Griffith, but learned to love Goldstein. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    May 3 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ I've edited the LaTeX. I hope it's better readable now. $\endgroup$
    – joigus
    May 3 at 20:08

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.