Recently, I've been wondering how to rewrite the standard Euler-Lagrange equations: \begin{align} \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial q^i} - \dfrac{d}{dt} \left(\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^i}\right) &= 0 \end{align} (all derivatives being evaluated at appropriate points along a stationary curve of the action functional) without referencing the coordinates $(q^1, \dots q^n, \dot{q}^1, \dots, \dot{q}^n)$ on the tangent bundle. So, I tried to rewrite things as much as possible using only "natural operations" on the tangent bundle, like Lie-derivative, exterior derivative etc. Of course, I didn't succeed (and any articles I tried to search online were too abstract to understand), so what I did was expand the total time derivative: \begin{align} \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial q^i} - \left[\dfrac{\partial^2 L}{\partial q^j\partial \dot{q}^i}\dot{q}^j + \dfrac{\partial^2 L}{\partial \dot{q}^j\partial \dot{q}^i}\ddot{q}^j \right] &= 0. \end{align} This gave me the idea that perhaps thinking of the Lagrangian, $L$, as a function on the tangent bundle $TQ \to \Bbb{R}$ is perhaps not the most appropriate/natural setting. It seems that the tangent bundle only has coordinates $(q, \dot{q})$, whereas the Euler-Lagrange equations which are second order differential equations, involving $\ddot{q}$. So, it seemed to me that it would be nice to construct a new manifold $M$, from the original "configuration manifold" $Q$, so that on the new manifold $M$, we have local coordinates $(q^i, \dot{q}^i, \ddot{q}^i)$, for $1 \leq i \leq n$.

To formalize this idea of introducing a larger manifold with extra coordinates for higher derivatives, my plan was to mimic the construction of $TQ$ as much as possible.

Let $k \geq 1$ be an integer and let $Q$ be a smooth manifold modeled on a Banach space $E$. Now, we define a relation $\sim_k$ on the set of all smooth curves $\gamma:I \to Q$, where $I$ is an open set in $\Bbb{R}$ containing $0$, by declaring $\gamma_1 \sim_k \gamma_2$ if and only if there is a chart $(U, \alpha)$ of $Q$ such that (the composition below makes sense and) for every $r \in \{0, \dots, k\}$, we have \begin{align} (\alpha \circ \gamma_1)^{(r)}(0) &= (\alpha \circ \gamma_2)^{(r)}(0). \end{align} A tedious, but straight forward induction exercise and chain rule shows that this relation doesn't depend on the choice of chart $(U, \alpha)$, so we're actually justified with using the notation $\sim_k$ without referencing the chart. This is also an equivalence relation. For the lack of a better name, I shall denote the quotient set of equivalence classes as \begin{align} C^kQ := (\text{smooth curves in $Q$})/\sim_k, \end{align} and I shall call it "the $k^{th}$ order contact manifold of curves in $Q$". Given a smooth curve $\gamma$, we shall indicate the equivalence class either as $C^k\gamma$ or $[\gamma]$, whichever is more convenient. Next, I outline how I put a manifold structure.

I realized that this space has quite a bit of structure: we can define a projection map $\pi_k : C^kQ \to Q$ by sending $C^k \gamma \mapsto \gamma(0)$. We can even make this into a smooth manifold as follows: given a chart $(U, \alpha)$ on $Q$, we define the chart $(C^kU, C^k \alpha)$ by defining $C^kU := \pi_k^{-1}[U]$ and $C^k \alpha : C^kU \to \alpha[U] \times E^k$, \begin{align} C^k \alpha([\gamma]) &:= \left( (\alpha \circ \gamma)(0), (\alpha \circ \gamma)'(0), \dots (\alpha \circ \gamma)^{k}(0) \right) \end{align} This is a well-defined map because of how the equivalence relation was defined. It is also easily seen to be a bijective map, and also, if $(V, \beta)$ is another chart on $Q$ with $U \cap V \neq \emptyset$, then using the chain rule, it is straightforward (though tedious) to seem that $(C^k \beta) \circ (C^k \alpha)^{-1}$ is a smooth map between open subsets of Banach spaces.

Also, I only just recently read up about fiber bundles, but I believe that based on what I've constructed, we have that $\pi_k :C^kQ \to Q$ is a fiber bundle, with typical fiber $E^k$, whereby the maps $C^k\alpha$ defined above provide us with the local trivializations. Is this the correct way of using the terminology?

Here are my questions:

  • Have people considered such spaces $C^kQ$? Are they interesting manifolds to study, and am I right in thinking that these manifolds would be a more appropriate setting to formulate Lagrangian mechanics? I believe that this is true, because if for some reason we decided to consider a Lagrangian which depends on higher derivatives of the curve, then the tangent bundle alone is insufficient to capture such information. In any case, I would appreciate some confirmation/denial along with references (if any).

  • Is it possible to formulate the Euler-Lagrange equations in a coordinate-free manner, perhaps using such spaces? If yes, I'd appreciate some references (which hopefully aren't too abstract).

  • For $k=1$, this construction yields precisely the tangent bundle, in which case, the fiber over each point $x \in Q$, namely $T_xQ$ can be given a natural vector space structure. However, for $k>1$, am I right in saying that we cannot endow each fiber with a vector space structure? Of course, if we choose a particular chart $(U, \alpha)$, we can establish a bijection between the fiber $\pi_k^{-1}(\{x\})$ and $E^k$, and hence inherit a vector space structure that way, but I believe that this is not a chart-independent construction. Is this right?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I didn't read everything you wrote, but the idea of taking the $k$-th derivative tangent vectors is described by looking at the space of $k$-jets $\Bbb R\to M$ at $0$. The language of jets and jet bundles is natural when tracking higher derivatives than $1$. However higher derivatives are messy, and this language is (imo) unpleasant. You can find a short introduction in these notes by Ballmann or in this book in chapter 4. $\endgroup$
    – s.harp
    Jun 1 '20 at 9:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @s.harp I see, so what I've been calling $C^kQ$ is more commonly referred to as the $k^{th}$ jet space $J^k(\Bbb{R}, Q)$. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction regarding some "buzz words" to search, and for the references. $\endgroup$
    – peek-a-boo
    Jun 1 '20 at 9:28

Regarding your second question, see Equation 8 in Crampin, M. (1981). On the differential geometry of the Euler-Lagrange equations, and the inverse problem of Lagrangian dynamics. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 14(10), 2567–2575. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/14/10/012


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.