Additivity of lagrangian and constraints on multiplication by arbitrary const

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the additivity of Lagrangians for two non-interacting systems, A and B, as presented in Landau's mechanics. It emphasizes that while the Lagrangian can be expressed as the sum of the two systems when they are far apart, this additivity implies that the systems cannot be completely independent, as their total Lagrangian must be defined in relation to the entire universe. The conversation highlights the complexity of interpreting Landau's ideas, suggesting that a deeper understanding of classical mechanics is necessary before engaging with his texts. It also notes that introducing interactions alters the symmetry of the system, affecting conservation laws. Ultimately, the equations of motion derived from the Lagrangian reflect the independence of the two systems when they do not interact.
somitra
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello

I am using Landau's mechanics Vol I for classical mechanics. On page 4 he mentions for Lagrangian of a system composed of two systems A and B which are so far away so that their interactions can be neglected.

then for the combined system we have L = LA + LB

I'm trying to understand how this additivity implies only simultaneous multiplication of LA and LB by an arbitrary constant.

I think to establish it we might have to consider the difference in Lagrangian when A & B are close by and when they are far away.

Please guide. Any help will be appriciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that's a typical example of a "Landau-type" reasoning: there is certainly a very profound idea behind every single thing he expresses, but he's certainly not good at all in exposing these ideas. In reading Landau's books, one spends more time trying to interpret what he means, than on actually understanding the physical concepts. That's why, in my opinion, one has to read Landau's books only after he is very familiar with the subject: you don't learn with it, but you certainly get a deeper point of view.

In the specific case of the additivity of the lagrangians, I think he wants to say that exactly separate systems actually don't exist, so in principle you cannot define separate lagrangians. Only the total lagrangian exists, and you can multiply it by a constant. When you take the systems far away, you observe that the lagrangian tends to a sum of two lagrangians, and if you started with a total lagrangian multiplied by a constant, you end up with the two lagrangians multiplied by the same constant.
 
Hey thanks. Does that mean it is meaningless to define the lagrangian of a system without referring to rest of the universe. We actually do it all the time by considering isolated systems and then deriving lagrangian by consideration of symmentries. In fact lagrangian of a two particle is written as the sum of two terms. One representing the lagrangian in case the particles are separated far enough. The other term representing the interaction of the two particles.
 
somitra said:
Hey thanks. Does that mean it is meaningless to define the lagrangian of a system without referring to rest of the universe. We actually do it all the time by considering isolated systems and then deriving lagrangian by consideration of symmentries. In fact lagrangian of a two particle is written as the sum of two terms. One representing the lagrangian in case the particles are separated far enough. The other term representing the interaction of the two particles.

Yes, and introducing an interaction generally breaks the symmetry. For example, invariance under translations causes each individual momentum to be conserved, but when you introduce a translation-invariant interaction only the total momentum is conserved, because the interaction causes the system to be invariant only under a global translation.
 
Ok, so, if you read what is the point of Lagrangians, you would have understood that they generate the equations of motion for the system:

<br /> \frac{d}{d t} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_{i}} - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_{i}} = 0<br />

Now, two non-interacting system would mean that the equations of motion of system A do not contain any coordinates and speeds of system B and vice versa.

This is only possible if the total Lagrangian of the system is:

<br /> L(q, \dot{q}) = L_{A}(q_{A}, \dot{q}_{A}) + L_{B}(q_{B}, \dot{q}_{B})<br />
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...
Back
Top