1
$\begingroup$

This is in reference to the question: Deriving the Lagrangian for a free particle

My question is specifically in regards to QMechanic's answer to this question, and I have quoted the relevant part of this answer below:

In physics, it is often implicitly assumed that the Lagrangian L=L($\overrightarrow{q}$ ,$\overrightarrow{v}$ ,t) depends smoothly on the (generalized) positions $q_i$, velocities $v_i$, and time t, i.e. that the Lagrangian L is a differentiable function}

Why should we assume the Lagrangian be a differentiable function of positions and velocities?

For example, every potential of the form $1/r^n$ is non-differentiable at the origin, for $n>0$ and we do encounter such potentials all the time (for $n=1$, we recover the usual central force problem).

Can we not have any situations where the Lagrangian is not a differentiable function of the velocities?

This is relevant because later in the answer, they say:

This is differentiable wrt. the speed v=$|\overrightarrow{v}|$, but it is not differentiable wrt. the velocity $\overrightarrow{v}$ at $\overrightarrow{v}=\overrightarrow{0}$ if $\alpha \neq 0$. Therefore the second branch (6) is discarded.

That is, they are using the non-differentiability of a candidate Lagrangian with respect to velocities to rule it out.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic Thanks for the edits! $\endgroup$
    – TVina
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ I may be missing something but the answer you link states right in the first line that the Lagrangian is a differentiable function of position too. Maybe you can include this in your question and ask about that part concerning your question about the singular potentials. $\endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Triatticus Thanks for the catch! I made the edits $\endgroup$
    – TVina
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ "Sorry if this has been asked before..." If what has been asked before? What is your question? It would help if you state the question clearly and end the question with a question mark. $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ "Can we not have any situations where the Lagrangian is not a differentiable function of the velocities?" The double negative might make this hard to parse for some people. But I guess you mean what the sentence reads without the first "not." $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 22:34

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

Why should we assume the Lagrangian be a differentiable function of positions and velocities?

Because it makes things easier and is often true.

Can we not have any situations where the Lagrangian is not a differentiable function of the velocities?

Double negative notwithstanding, I guess you are asking for examples where the Lagrangian is not a differentiable function of velocity.

One example is the Lagrangian of a relativistic point particle: $$ L = -mc^2\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} $$

Clearly, the derivative with respect to $v^2$ has some issues at $v^2=c^2$.


Update: OP is asking more question in the comments...

Thanks! Is there any reason why a Lagrangian of the form L=av+b (where v is the magnitude of velocity) would not be an acceptable Lagrangian

Acceptable to whom? You can certainly consider it...

It doesn't really generate an interesting Hamiltonian: $$ H = -b\;. $$

And, as explained in the linked-answer, it generates silly equations of motion.


Maybe it would be helpful to explain that, in classical mechanics, the kinetic energy (in its usual form as $\frac{1}{2}\sum_i m_i v_i^2$) is more primal than the Lagrangian. The total kinetic energy (in its usual form) results as the quantity that is changed by the total work. If you can write this work as resulting from conservative forces then the Lagrangian appears and becomes useful.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I edited the question to make it clear. My problem isn't with the Lagrangian equations; it is with the claim made in the answer (which I have quoted now in the question) that the Lagrangian is a smooth function of the generalized coordinates and velocities. $\endgroup$
    – TVina
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I edited by answer. $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Is there any reason why a Lagrangian of the form L=av+b, (where v is the magnitude of velocity) would not be an acceptable Lagrangian, given that the Lagrangian can be a non-differentiable function of velocity? The reason why I ask this is because QMechanic's derivation eventually rules out a Lagrangian of this form in order to arrive at the conclusion that the acceleration of a free particle is zero. $\endgroup$
    – TVina
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ It depends on what you mean by "an acceptable Lagrangian." Acceptable to whom and for what purpose? Is it acceptable for you to consider as a contrarian example? Yes, sure. Is it acceptable as an appropriate description of a free particle? No. Could you make it more acceptable by tossing in some Dirac matrices? Sure. $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 23:56
0
$\begingroup$

The point is, the function you mentioned is non differentiable at a single point which we can disregard by just restricting our domain of interest to be the complement of that point.

The lagrangian in classical mechanics is $K-U$, the kinetic energy is quadratic in velocities and hence is a polynomial (and hence trivially differentiable); the potential may depend on the velocity but that's rare and even in the physical cases where it does (electromagnetism) it's linear so no problem there as well. Also, it may be that you choose a coordinate system which has a singularity (e.g. polar coordinates), but that is just an artifact of the coordinate system. Meanwhile regarding the potential energy, ask yourself: What kind of potential energies have you encountered that model real life interactions? the gravitational and coulomb are both differentiable apart from one point (and so is the generalized coulomb). Perhaps it's useful to point out that when we say differentiable we mean differentiable almost everywhere (in the intuitive not the measure-theoretic sense); because a few points of discontinuity or differentiability isn't a huge deal. To convince yourself of the need of "differentiability almost everywhere" you may be interested to look at a continuous nowhere differentiable function; do you honestly think that a force of nature would behave this way, for example? Not to mention that if the potential is discontinuous at a point this would imply that its gradient (force) is infinite at that point; as I said, that's okay if we have a point or two where this happens (like gravitational and coulomb), but becomes highly problematic and unrealistic otherwise; we simply don't observe entire portions of space where the force is infinite.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.