Does a Lagrangian preserving transformation obey the equations of motion?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between Lagrangian transformations and the equations of motion in classical mechanics. Specifically, it addresses the transformation of generalized coordinates \( q_i(t) \) to \( Q_i(t) \) while maintaining the Lagrangian \( L(q_i, \dot{q}_i, t) \). The participants conclude that proving \( Q_i(t) \) satisfies Lagrange's equations is not trivial and is foundational to Noether's theorem, which connects symmetries and conservation laws in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with generalized coordinates and velocities
  • Knowledge of Noether's theorem
  • Basic concepts of phase space in classical mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Noether's theorem in detail
  • Explore the implications of Lagrangian symmetries on conservation laws
  • Learn about transformations in Lagrangian mechanics
  • Investigate examples of systems where Lagrangian transformations apply
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, students of classical mechanics, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of symmetries in physical systems.

dEdt
Messages
286
Reaction score
2
This seems like such a simple question that I fully expect its solution to be embarrassingly easy, but try as I might I can't get the answer.

Consider some system which can be described by N generalized coordinates [itex]q_1,...,q_N[/itex] and a Lagrangian [itex]L(q_i,\dot{q}_i,t)[/itex]. (I'll just use [itex]q_i[/itex] as a stand in for [itex]q_1,...,q_N[/itex]). Let [itex]q_i(t)[/itex] be a solution to Lagrange's equations ie an actual possible trajectory through phase space that the system can follow.

Now we make the transformation [itex]q_i(t) \rightarrow Q_i(t)[/itex] such that the Lagrangian doesn't change. I want to prove that [itex]Q_i(t)[/itex] also satisfies Lagrange's equations.

This seems like it'd be so trivial to prove, and it probably is, but I can't brain today (or yesterday, apparently) and would appreciate your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it's not trivial to prove, in fact it's quite the opposite. this is the beginning of the proof of Noether's theorem. I personally don't remember the proof, but you can google it easily.
 
Unfortunately, I was motivated to ask this question because the proof of Noether's theorem in my textbook asserted this without proof! And all other proofs that I've seen are constructed to avoid the problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K