# 2. The Calculus of Variations

### Introduction

We've seen how Whewell solved the problem of the equilibrium shape of chain hanging between two places, by finding how the forces on a length of chain, the tension at the two ends and its weight, balanced. We're now going to look at a completely different approach: the equilibrium configuration is an energy minimum, so small deviations from it can only make second-order changes in the gravitational potential energy. Here we'll find how analyzing that leads to a differential equation for the curve, and how the technique developed can be successfully applied of a vast array of problems.

### The Catenary and the Soap Film

The catenary is the curved configuration of a uniform inextensible rope with two fixed endpoints at rest in a constant gravitational field. That is to say, it is the curve that minimizes the gravitational potential energy

where we have taken the rope density and both equal to unity for mathematical convenience. Usually in calculus we minimize a function with respect to a single variable, or several variables. Here the potential energy is a function of a function, equivalent to an infinite number of variables, and our problem is to minimize it with respect to arbitrary small variations of that function. In other words, if we nudge the chain somewhere, and its motion is damped by air or internal friction, it will settle down again in the catenary configuration.

Formally speaking, there will be no change in that potential energy to leading order if we make an infinitesimal change in the curve, (subject of course to keeping the length the same, that is .)

This method of solving the problem is called the *calculus
of variations*: in ordinary calculus, we make an infinitesimal change in a
variable, and compute the corresponding change in a function, and if it's zero
to leading order in the small change, we're at an extreme value.

(*Nitpicking
footnote*: Actually this assumes the second order term is nonzero -- what
about near the origin? But
such situations are infrequent in the problems we're likely to encounter.)

The difference here is that the potential energy of the
hanging change isn't just a function of a variable, or even of a number of
variables -- it's a *function of a function*, it depends on the position of
every point on the chain (in the limit of infinitely small links, that is, or
equivalently a continuous rope).

So, we're looking for the configuration where the potential
energy doesn't change to first order for *any* infinitesimal change in the
curve of its position, subject to fixed endpoints, and a fixed chain length.

As a warm up, we'll consider a simpler -- but closely related -- problem.

### A Soap Film Between Two Horizontal Rings: the Euler-Lagrange Equation

This problem is very similar to the catenary: surface tension will pull the soap film to the minimum possible total area compatible with the fixed boundaries (and neglecting gravity, which is a small effect).

(Interestingly,
this problem is also closely related to *string theory*: as a closed
string propagates, its path traces out as "world sheet" and the string dynamics
is determined by that sheet having minimal area.)

Taking the axis of rotational symmetry to be the-axis, and the radius , we need to find the function that minimizes the total area (is measured along the curve of the surface). Think of the soap film as a sequence of rings or collars, of radiusand therefore area The total area is given by integrating, adding all these incremental collars,

given that

(You might be
thinking at this point: isn't this *identical* to the catenary equation?
The answer is yes, *but *the chain has an additional requirement -- *it has
a fixed length*. The soap film is not constrained in that way, it can
stretch or contract to minimize the total area, so this is a different
problem!)

That is, we want to first order, if we make a change . Of course, this also means where .

### General Method for the Minimization Problem

To emphasize the generality of the method, we'll just write

.

Then under any infinitesimal variation (equal to zero at the fixed endpoints)

To make further progress, we write , then integrate the second term by parts, remembering at the endpoints, to get

Since this is true for any infinitesimal variation, we can choose a variation which is only nonzero near one point in the interval, and deduce that

This general result is called the **Euler-Lagrange equation**.
It's very important -- you'll be seeing it again.

### An Important First Integral of the Euler-Lagrange Equation

It turns out that, *since the functiondoes not containexplicitly*, there
is a simple first integral of this equation. Multiplying throughout by ,

Since doesn't depend explicitly on , we have

and using this to replace in the preceding equation gives

then multiplying by (to match the equation as usually written) we have

giving a **first
integral**

For the soap film between two rings problem,

so the Euler-Lagrange equation is

and has first integral

We'll write

with *a* the constant of integration, which will depend
on the endpoints.

This is a first-order differential equation, and can be solved.

Rearranging,

or

The standard substitution here is , from which

Hereis the second constant of integration, the fixed endpoints determine .

### The Soap Film and the Chain

We see that the soap film profile function and the hanging chain have identical analytic form. This is not too surprising, because the potential energy of the hanging chain in simplified units is just

the same as the area function for the soap film. But
there's an important *physical *difference: the chain has a fixed length.
The soap film is free to adjust its "length" to minimize the total area. The
chain isn't -- it's *constrained*. How do we deal with that?

### Lagrange Multipliers

The problem of finding minima (or maxima) of a function subject to constraints was first solved by Lagrange. A simple example will suffice to show the method.

Imagine we have some smooth curve in the plane that does not
pass through the origin, and we want to find the point on the curve that is its
closest approach to the origin. A standard illustration is to picture a
winding road through a bowl shaped valley, and ask for the low point on the road.
(We'll also assume that determinesuniquely, the road
doesn't double back, etc. If it does, the method below would give a series of *locally*
closest points to the origin, we would need to go through them one by one to
find the *globally* closest point.)

Let's write the curve, the road, (the wiggly red line in the figure below).

To find the closest approach point algebraically, we need to minimize (square of distance to origin) subject to the constraint .

In the figure, we've drawn curves for a range of values of (the circles centered at the origin).

We need to find the point of intersection of with the smallest
circle it intersects -- and it's clear from the figure that it must **touch**
that circle (if it crosses, it will necessarily get closer to the origin).

Therefore, at that point, the curves and are parallel.

Therefore the normals to the curves are *also* parallel: .

(** Note**: yes, those

*are*the directions of the normals -- for an infinitesimal displacement along the curve =constant, , so the vector is perpendicular to . This is also analogous to the electric field being perpendicular to the equipotential )

The constant introduced
here is called a **Lagrange multiplier**. It's just the ratio of the
lengths of the two normal vectors (of course, "normal" here means the vectors
are perpendicular to the curves, they are *not *normalized to unit
length!) We can find in terms of but at this point we don't
know their values.

The equations determining the closest approach to the origin can now be written:

(The third equation is just, meaning we're on the road.)

We have transformed a *constrained* minimization
problem in two dimensions to an *unconstrained *minimization problem in
three dimensions!

The first two equations can be solved to find and the ratio , the third equation then gives separately.

*Exercise for the reader*: Work through this for (There are two
solutions because the curve is
a hyperbola with two branches.)

Lagrange multipliers are widely used in economics, and other useful subjects such as traffic optimization.

### Lagrange Multiplier for the Chain

The catenary is generated by minimizing the potential energy of the hanging chain given above,

but now subject to the constraint of fixed chain length,

The Lagrange multiplier method generalizes in a straightforward way from variables to variable functions. In the curve example above, we minimized subject to the constraint What we need to do now is minimize subject to the constraint

For the minimum curve and the correct (so far unknown) value of , an arbitrary infinitesimal variation of the curve will give zero first-order change in , we write this as

Remarkably, the effect of the constraint is to give a simple adjustable parameter, the origin in the direction, so that we can satisfy the endpoint and length requirements.

The solution to the equation follows exactly the route followed for the soap film, leading to the first integral

witha constant of integration, which will depend on the endpoints.

Rearranging,

or

The standard substitution here is , we find

Here is the second constant of integration, the fixed endpoints and length give In general, the equations must be solved numerically. To get some feel for why this will always work, note that changing varies how rapidly the cosh curve climbs from its low point of, increasing "fattens" the curve, then by varying we can move that lowest point to the lowest point of the chain (or rather of the catenary, since it might be outside the range covered by the physical chain).

Algebraically, we know the curve can be written as , although at this stage we don't know the constant or where the origin is. What we do know is the length of the chain, and the horizontal and vertical distances and between the fixed endpoints. It's straightforward to calculate that the length of the chain is , and the vertical distancebetween the endpoints is from which . All terms in this equation are known except , which can therefore be found numerically. (This is in Wikipedia, among other places.)

** Exercise**: try applying this reasoning to
finding for the soap film
minimization problem. In that case, we know and , there is no length
conservation requirement, to find we
must eliminate the unknownfrom
the equations This is not
difficult, but, in contrast to the chain, does

*not*give in terms of , instead, appear separately. Explain, in terms of the physics of the two systems, why this is so different from the chain.

### The Brachistochrone

Suppose you have two points, A and B, B is below A, but not directly below. You have some smooth, let's say frictionless, wire, and a bead that slides on the wire. The problem is to curve the wire from A down to B in such a way that the bead makes the trip as quickly as possible.

This optimal curve is called the "brachistochrone", which is just the Greek for "shortest time".

But what, exactly, is this curve, that is, what is , in the obvious notation?

This was the challenge problem posed by Johann Bernoulli to the mathematicians of Europe in a Journal run by Leibniz in June 1696. Isaac Newton was working fulltime running the Royal Mint, recoining England, and hanging counterfeiters. Nevertheless, ending a full day's work at 4 pm, and finding the problem delivered to him, he solved it by 4am the next morning, and sent the solution anonymously to Bernoulli. Bernoulli remarked of the anonymous solution "I recognize the lion by his clawmark".

*This was the beginning of the Calculus of Variations. *

Here's how to solve the problem: we'll take the starting
point A to be the origin, and for convenience measure the -axis positive *downwards*.
This means the velocity at any point on the path is given by

So measuring length along the path as as usual, the time is given by

Notice that this has the same form as the catenary equation, the only difference being that is replaced by , the integrand does not depend on so we have the first integral:

That is,

so

being a constant of integration (the 2 proves convenient).

Recalling that the curve starts at the origin A, it must begin by going vertically downward, since For small enough , we can approximate by ignoring the 1, so , . The curve must however become horizontal if it gets as far down as , and it cannot go below that level.

Rearranging in order to integrate,

This is not a very appealing integrand. It looks a little nicer on writing ,

Now what? We'd prefer for the expression inside the square root to be a perfect square, of course. You may remember from high school trig that . This gives immediately that

so the substitution is what we need. Then

This integrates to give

where we've fixed the constant of integration so that the curve goes through the origin (at ).

To see what this curve looks like, first ignore the term in , leaving Evidently as increases from zero, the point goes anticlockwise around a circle of radius centered at , that is, touching the -axis at the origin.

Now adding the back in, this circular motion move steadily to the right, in such a way that the initial direction of the path is vertically down. (For very small ).

Visualizing the total motion as steadily increases, The
center moves from its original position at to the right at a
speed Meanwhile, the point
is moving round the circle anticlockwise at this same speed. Putting together
the center's linear velocity with the corresponding angular velocity, we see
the motion is the path of a
point on the rim of a wheel rolling without sliding along a road (upside down
in our case, of course). This is a *cycloid*.

### Fastest Curve for Given Horizontal Distance

Suppose we want to find the curve a bead slides down to minimize the time from the origin to some specified horizontal displacement X, but we don't care what vertical drop that entails.

Recall how we derived the equation for the curve:

At the minimum, under any infinitesimal variation ,

Writing , and integrating the second term by parts,

In the earlier treatment, both endpoints were fixed, so we dropped that final term.

However, we are now trying to find the fastest time for a given horizontal distance, so the final vertical distance is an adjustable parameter: .

As before, since for arbitrary we can still choose a which is only nonzero near some point not at the end, so we must still have

However, we must also have to first order for arbitrary infinitesimal (imagine a variation only nonzero near the endpoint), this can only be true if at

For the brachistochrone,

so at means that , *the curve is
horizontal at the end* So
the curve that delivers the bead a given horizontal distance the fastest is the
half-cycloid (inverted) flat at the end. It's easy to see this fixes the curve
uniquely: think of the curve as generated by a rolling wheel, one half-turn of
the wheel takes the top point to the bottom in distance *X*.

*Exercise*: how low does it go?

### The Perfect Pendulum

Around the time of Newton, the best timekeepers were pendulum clocks -- but the time of oscillation of a simple pendulum depends on its amplitude, although of course the correction is small for small amplitude. The pendulum takes longer for larger amplitude. This can be corrected for by having the string constrained between enclosing surfaces to steepen the pendulum's path for larger amplitudes, and thereby speed it up.

It turns out (and was proved geometrically by Newton) that the ideal pendulum path is a cycloid. Thinking in terms of the equivalent bead on a wire problem, with a symmetric cycloid replacing the circular arc of an ordinary pendulum, if the bead is let go from rest at any point on the wire, it will reach the center in the same time as from any other point. So a clock with a pendulum constrained to such a path will keep very good time, and not be sensitive to the amplitude of swing.

The proof involves similar integrals and tricks to those used above:

And with the parameterization above, , the integral becomes

.

As before, we can now write , etc., to find that *is in fact
independent of* .

This is left as an *exercise* for the reader. (*Hint*:
you may find to be
useful. Can you prove this integral is correct? Why doesn't it depend on ?)

*Exercise*: As you well know, a simple harmonic oscillator,
a mass on a linear spring with restoring force , has a period
independent of amplitude. Does this mean that a particle sliding on a cycloid
is equivalent to a simple harmonic oscillator? Find out by expressing the
motion as an equation where the
distance variable from the origin is *s measured along the curve*.

Check out sliding along a cycloid here!

## Calculus of Variations with Many Variables

We've found the equations defining the curve along which the integral

has a stationary value, and we've seen how it works in some two-dimensional curve examples.

But most dynamical systems are parameterized by more than one variable, so we need to know how to go from a curve in to one in a space , and we need to minimize (say)

In fact, the generalization is straightforward: the path deviation simply becomes a vector,

Then under any infinitesimal variation (writing also

)

Just as before, we take the variation zero at the endpoints,
and integrate by parts to get now *n* separate equations for the
stationary path:

### Multivariable First Integral

Following and generalizing the one-variable derivation, multiplying the above equations one by one by the corresponding

we have the *n*
equations

Since doesn't depend explicitly on , we have

and just as for the one-variable case, these equations give

and the (important!) **first integral**

previous home next PDF