I Circular orbits aren't minimas of lagrangian for Kepler problem?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the calculus of variations to the Kepler problem, specifically questioning whether circular orbits represent minima of the Lagrangian. The author derives the necessary equations and shows that the second variation can be negative, indicating that circular orbits are not minima under the least-action principle. A footnote in Gelfand and Fomin's book suggests that theorems regarding Jacobi equations may still hold even when certain conditions are not met, leading to confusion about the validity of circular orbits as minima. The conversation also highlights the distinction between "least action" and "stationary action," emphasizing that the action's stationary value is what matters, rather than its minimum or maximum. The discussion concludes with a suggestion to seek further clarification on the mathematical conflict presented.
thalesofmiletus
Messages
2
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Circular orbits are solution of Euler-Lagrange's equation for lagrangian in Kepler problem. But this is only necessary condition, not sufficient. Another condition is that second variation of lagrangian needs to be positive definite. And if my calculations are correct, it is not. But otherwise in Gelfands and Fomin's "Calculus of variations" there is footnote indicating that it should be (with all other theorems).
My point of view is bases on CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS by I. M. GELFANDS. and V. FOMIN. I would assume that you are familiar with the topic. I've found this book online, If needed I can provide link, but for now I don't know if it's legal in this site, so I won't.
(by the way, I'm new on this site, so if latex isn't working I will try to repair it, but I'd appreciate help in such case)

So basically junctional for Kepler problem is defigned as such

\int\left(\frac{1}{2} m(\dot r^2+r^2 \dot \varphi^2) +\frac{GMm}{r} \right)dt

From which using E-L equations you can derive solution

r=\frac{p}{1+\varepsilon \cos{(\varphi-\varphi_0)}}

where p=\frac{L^2}{GMm^2} , \varepsilon=\sqrt{1+\frac{2EL^2}{G^2M^2m^3}} , E is total energy E=\frac{1}{2} m\dot r^2+\frac{L^2}{2mr^2} -\frac{GMm}{r} and L is angular momentum L=mr^2 \dot \varphi. (I can provide my full solution if you need)

Before we consider special solution of circular orbits, let's derive formula for second variation in general case. Formula is given as

\delta^2J[h]=\frac{1}{2} \int_a^b \left( \sum_{i,k=1}^n F_{y_iy_k}h_ih_k + 2\sum_{i,k=1}^n F_{y_iy'_k}h_ih'_k + \sum_{i,k=1}^n F_{y'_iy'_k}h'_ih'_k\right) dx

(Note that you cannot use (Ph',h')+(Qh,h) is this case, becouse that require F_{yy'} to be simetrical, which IS NOT for this example)

where for junctional in Kepler problem partial derivatives are

F_{rr}=m \dot \varphi^2+\frac{2GMm}{r^3}
F_{r\varphi}=F_{\varphi r}=F_{\varphi\varphi}=0
F_{r \dot r}=0
F_{r\dot\varphi}=2mr\dot\varphi
F_{\varphi \dot r}=F_{\varphi \dot \varphi}=0
F_{\dot r\dot r}=m
F_{\dot r \dot \varphi}=0
F_{\dot \varphi\dot \varphi }=mr^2

Now let's asume that \varepsilon=0 (the solution is circle). Let r\equiv R, using angular momemtum formula and E-L equation with respect to r we can derive $L=\sqrt{GMm^2R}. Substituting that to partials we get (ignoring ones that equal 0)

F_{rr}=m \dot \varphi^2+\frac{2GMm}{R^3}=\frac{3GMm}{R^3}
F_{r\dot\varphi}=2mR\dot\varphi=2\sqrt{\frac{GMm^2}{R}}=2\sqrt{\frac{GMm}{R^3}\cdot mR^2}
F_{\dot r\dot r}=m
F_{\dot \varphi\dot \varphi }=mR^2

So under integral we get

\frac{3GMm}{R^3}h_1^2+4\sqrt{\frac{GMm}{R^3}\cdot mR^2}h_1\dot h_2+mR^2\dot h_2^2+m\dot h_1^2

which can be rearanged to

\left(\sqrt{\frac{3GMm}{R^3}}h_1+\sqrt{mR^2}\dot h_2\right)^2+\left(4-2\sqrt{3}\right)\sqrt{\frac{GMm^2}{R}}h_1\dot h_2+m\dot h_1^2

what can be negative, for example if we take \dot h_2=-\sqrt{\frac{3GM}{R^4}}h_1 then the squared bracket is 0 and you can easily come on up h_1 that makes second variation negative.

So to conclude, there are (h_1,h_2) for which \delta^2J[h] are negative, so it cannot be positive definite. What means that circular orbits are not minimas of lagrangian. What means that they should not be present in world when we assume least-action principle. Well clearly there is something wrong in here. I hope some one might help me.One last remark. In Gelfands and Fomin's book there is footnote (page 119) that theorems regarding Jacobi equations are true even when F_{yy'} is not simetrical. As far as I understand the book, from those theorems we deduce sifficient conditions for minimas of juntional. And if we ignore that F_{yy'} is not simetrical and check Legendre and Jacobi conditions as it were simetrical, we get that both holds, even in strengthened versions. So we conclude that circular orbits are minimas of lagrangian in kepler problem? The footnote refers to (H. Niemeyer, private communication), how can I tell if this is valid?
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
The principle of least action is a misnomer. The appropriate name would be the principle of stationary action. The important thing is not whether the action takes a minimal value - it is if it takes a stationary value, ie, maxes and saddles are also relevant.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and thalesofmiletus
Orodruin said:
The principle of least action is a misnomer. The appropriate name would be the principle of stationary action. The important thing is not whether the action takes a minimal value - it is if it takes a stationary value, ie, maxes and saddles are also relevant.
Thanks, that helpfull. However the mathematical conflict with footnote from the book still remains. Perhaps I should post it somewhere on math forum.
 
As pointed out by contributor Orodruin, the content of Hamilton's stationary action is: the true trajectory is the point in variation space such that the derivative of Hamilton's action is zero. Whether the condition of derivative-of-Hamilton's-action-is-zero corresponds to a minimum or a maximum is not material.

Phrased differently: the business end is the criterion: the point in variation space such that the derivative of the action (wrt variation) is zero. It's just that if you have a curve, and it goes from sloping one way to sloping the other way, and it has a single point where the derivative is zero: that single point is mathematically constrained to be either a minimum or a maximum.

Of course, just the word 'minimization' feels enticing to a physicist. The temptation to latch onto it is pretty much irresistible. So there we are.

As to when a minimum or a maximum is encountered:
I have looked at cases with a single spatial degree of freedom. There is a crossover point, in the sense of a range of cases, and traversing that range of different cases you go from the true trajectory being a minimum of Hamilton's action to the true trajectory being a maximum of hamilton's action; the determining factor is to how the force that acts is a function of distance. (Examples: there are inverse square laws, but there are also interactions such that the force increases with distance.) In case you are interested: identifying that crossover point is part of a discussion of Hamilton's stationary action that is available on my own website.
Incidentally, the first to offer the expression 'stationary action' rather than 'least action' was Hamilton himself.

David R. Wilkins, Trinity College Dublin, has made transcriptions of many of Hamilton's papers. Among those papers is one titled: 'On a general Method of expressing the Paths of Light, and of the Planets, by the Coefficients of a Characteristic Function' (Listed as being published in the 'Dublin University Review', which presumably only had a small circulation.)

[...] its pretensions to a cosmological necessity, on the ground of economy in the universe, are now generally rejected. And the rejection appears just, for this, among other reasons, that the quantity pretended to be economised is in fact often lavishly expended. In optics, for example, though the sum of the incident and reflected portions of the path of light, in a single ordinary reflexion at a plane, is always the shortest of any, yet in reflexion at a curved mirror this economy is often violated.

That is why earlier in the same paper Hamilton had proposed:

From this Law, then, which may, perhaps, be named the LAW OF STATIONARY ACTION, it seems that we may most fitly and with best hope set out, in the synthetic or deductive process, and in search of a mathematical method.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top