1
$\begingroup$

I know that

$$U= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j,k} A_{jk} q_j q_k \quad \quad T= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j,k} m_{jk} \dot{q}_j \dot{q}_k $$

and the lagrangian is

$$ \frac{\partial U}{\partial q_k} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}_k} = 0$$

If I derivate

$$ \frac{\partial U}{\partial q_k} = \frac{\partial}{\partial q_k} (\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j,k} A_{jk} q_j q_k) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j,k} A_{jk} (\frac{\partial q_j}{\partial q_k} \delta_{jk} \quad q_k + q_j \quad \frac{\partial q_k}{\partial q_k} \delta_{kk} )$$

and

$$ \frac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}_k} = \frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{q}_k} (\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j,k} m_{jk} \dot{q}_j \dot{q}_k) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j,k} m_{jk} (\frac{\partial \dot{q}_j}{\partial \dot{q}_k} \delta_{jk} \quad \dot{q}_k + \dot{q}_j \frac{\partial \dot{q}_k}{\partial \dot{q}_k} \delta_{kk})$$

but, the results is

$$ \frac{\partial U}{\partial q_k} = \sum_{j} A_{jk} q_j $$

and

$$ \frac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}_k} = \sum_{j} m_{jk} \dot{q}_j $$

I don't understand this, how this happened ? Where is $\frac{1}{2}$?

This is a passage from Marion (Classical Mechanics), I found it curious and tried to solve it, because the derivative was meaningless to me, and the subindexes are very confusing to understand.

The lagrangian is $$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_k} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_k} = 0$$ but it uses this other relation with $U$ and $T$, How can this be valid?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What are you reading? $\endgroup$
    – schris38
    Commented Dec 12, 2022 at 12:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In your expression, you have the same index ($k$) as a "dummy" index in your sum and as a "free" index attached to the $q$ you'r taking the derivative of. Don't do that. Before taking these derivatives, you should always relabel your dummy indices so that they don't conflict with the free indices. So you should really have $$ \frac{\partial U}{\partial q_k} = \frac{\partial}{\partial q_k} \left(\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j,l} A_{jl} q_j q_l \right) $$ and similarly for $\partial T/\partial \dot{q}_k$. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 12, 2022 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ @schris38 I'm reading Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems by Marion $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 12, 2022 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelSeifert wow, that makes sense, because otherwise one derivative cancels out and the other will be 1 $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 12, 2022 at 21:57

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

First, there are some mistakes in question:

  • potential is not always a quadratic form of the generalized coordinates. As an example, the potential of a gravitational field close to Earth surface reads $U= m g q_z$, if $q_z$ is the generalized coordinate representing the vertical displacement of a mass $m$, or the gravitational field coming from Newton's universal gravitation law, $U = - \frac{GMm}{q}$, being $q$ the generalized coordinated representing the distance between the point masses $m$, $M$

  • Lagrange equations read

    $\dfrac{d}{dt} \left(\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\right) - \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial q} = 0$

    if no non-conservative force is present.

Then, let's perform the derive of a quadratic form, like the kinetic energy, $K = \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{i j } A_{ij} \dot{q}_i \dot{q}_j$, with $A_{ij} = A_{ji}$ with respect to the independent variable $\dot{q}_{\ell}$,

$\dfrac{\partial K}{\partial \dot{q}_{\ell}} = \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} \left( A_{ij} \delta_{i \ell} \dot{q}_j + A_{ij} \dot{q}_i \delta_{j \ell} \right) = \\ \qquad = \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{j} A_{\ell j} \dot{q}_j + \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{i} A_{i \ell} \dot{q}_i = (\text{since $A_{ij} = A_{ji}$}) \\ \qquad = \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{j} A_{\ell j} \dot{q}_j + \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{i} A_{\ell i} \dot{q}_i = (\text{$i$, $j$ dummy, saturated by summations}) \\ \qquad = \sum_{i} A_{\ell i } \dot{q}_i$.

The same occurs for any other quadratic form.

$\endgroup$

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