There must be something I'm totally missing here.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The situation is the following.

I am asked to show that given the lagrangian for the Kepler problem,

[tex]L=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2+q^{-1}[/tex]

the k-th component of the Runge-Lenz vector,

[tex]A_k=\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2q_k-\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{\dot{q}}

\dot{q}_k-q_k/q[/tex]

is the conserved quantity associated (in the sense of Noether's thm) with the infinitesimal coordinate transformation [itex]\mathbf{q}\rightarrow\mathbf{q}+\delta \mathbf{q}[/itex], where [itex]\delta q_i = \epsilon(\dot{q}_iq_k-\frac{1}{2}q_i\dot{q}_k-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{q}}\delta_{ik})[/itex], epsilon being the infinitesimal parameter.

Following Noether's theorem, I know that if [tex]\delta L=L(\mathbf{q}+\delta \mathbf{q}, \mathbf{\dot{q}}+\delta \mathbf{\dot{q}},t)-L(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{\dot{q}},t)[/itex] can be written as

[tex]\delta L=\epsilon \frac{d}{dt}\Lambda(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{\dot{q}},t)+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)[/tex]

then the quantity

[tex]F_k:=\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}(\dot{q}_iq_k-\frac{1}{2}q_i\dot{q}_k-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{q}}\delta_{ik}) - \Lambda[/tex]

is conserved. By direct comparison of F_k with A_k I find that Lambda must be

[tex]\Lambda = \frac{q_k}{q}[/tex]

(also, this is confirmed by the wiki article on the Runge-Lenz vector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runge-Lenz#Noether.27s_theorem )

So what remains to be done is to show by direct calculation that indeed,

[tex]\delta L=\epsilon \frac{d}{dt}(\frac{q_k}{q})+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)[/tex]

So I expand [itex]\delta L[/itex]:

[tex]\delta L= \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2+2\mathbf{\dot{q}}\cdot \delta\mathbf{\dot{q}}+(\delta\mathbf{\dot{q}})^2)+(\mathbf{q}^2+2\mathbf{q}\cdot \delta\mathbf{q}+(\delta\mathbf{q})^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2-(\mathbf{q}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]

And here I find it impossible to put this in a form [itex]\delta L=\epsilon A+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)[/itex] because of all these guys in the numeratorandshielded by a square root. I have also tried "cheating", i.e. say "since epsilon is arbitrarily small, I can neglect this and this term" but nothing even comes close to the form I want.

So I concluded that there must be something fundamentally flawed about the reasoning laid above. Anyone sees?

Thanks for reading!

P.S. I would appreciate feedbacks, so that if I get a few feedbacks that the above is right, I will post more of my work so we can find where I'm going wrong.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Homework Help: Again with the Kepler problem

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**