Conservative force in a time-dependent potential

AI Thread Summary
A conservative force is defined as one that derives from a potential energy function, but if the potential is time-dependent, the work done cannot solely depend on the initial and final states of a particle, as shown by the work-energy theorem. The time-dependent potential leads to an additional term in the energy equation, indicating that the work done is trajectory-dependent. This situation is explained by Noether's theorem, which states that a system is symmetric under time translations only if the Lagrangian is not explicitly time-dependent. The discussion also touches on the idea of treating time as a fourth spatial dimension, but this approach approaches relativistic dynamics and requires careful development. Overall, time-dependent potentials complicate the conservative nature of forces and the work-energy relationship.
Happiness
Messages
686
Reaction score
30
A conservative force is one that is derivable from a potential energy function ##V##. If ##V## is time-dependent, is it still possible to have a conservative force or work done such that the work done is only dependent on the initial state ##(x_i, y_i, z_i, t_i)## and final state ##(x_f, y_f, z_f, t_f)## of the particle and independent of the trajectory taken?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, because in that case the work-energy theorem turns out to be
$$\frac{m}{2} \vec{v}(t)^2+\text{const}=\int \mathrm{d} t \vec{F}(\vec{x},t) \cdot \vec{v}=-\int \mathrm{d} t \vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x},t).$$
Now
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} U(\vec{x},t)=\vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x},t) + \partial_t U(\vec{x},t),$$
i.e., the integrand on the right-hand side of the work-energy theorem is not a total time derivative as in the case, when ##U## is not explicitly time-dependent.

This is a consequence of Noether's theorem: A system is symmetric under time translations if and only if the Lagrangian is not explicitly time dependent modulo a total time derivative of a function ##\Omega(q,t)##.
 
vanhees71 said:
No, because in that case the work-energy theorem turns out to be
$$\frac{m}{2} \vec{v}(t)^2+\text{const}=\int \mathrm{d} t \vec{F}(\vec{x},t) \cdot \vec{v}=-\int \mathrm{d} t \vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x},t).$$
Now
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} U(\vec{x},t)=\vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x},t) + \partial_t U(\vec{x},t),$$
i.e., the integrand on the right-hand side of the work-energy theorem is not a total time derivative as in the case, when ##U## is not explicitly time-dependent.

This is a consequence of Noether's theorem: A system is symmetric under time translations if and only if the Lagrangian is not explicitly time dependent modulo a total time derivative of a function ##\Omega(q,t)##.

How about we treat time as the fourth spatial dimension? Where ##\vec{v}## becomes a four-dimensional vector. Then
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} U(\vec{x},t)=\vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x},t)$$
So the integrand on the right-hand side of the work-energy theorem becomes a total time derivative.

What's wrong with this?
 
Well, that comes close to relativistic dynamics in terms of a world parameter. That generalized dynamics has to be developed carefully. For a good introduction (although unfortunately full of typos even in the math) see

Barut, Electrodynamics and classical theory of particles and fields, Dover
 
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top