Does Galilean symmetry imply that all systems are monogenic?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of Galilean symmetry in closed systems of particles, specifically questioning whether such symmetry necessitates that forces arise from potential energy. The equations of motion for a system of N particles are presented, highlighting the relationship between forces and their dependence on relative coordinates and velocities. The conversation emphasizes that even forces not derived from potential, such as friction, maintain Galilean invariance. The conclusion drawn is that while symmetry does not alter acceleration, the relationship between forces and potentials remains complex and not strictly defined under Galilean transformations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with Galilean transformations
  • Knowledge of potential energy and force relationships
  • Basic concepts of classical mechanics and particle interactions
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of Galilean symmetry in classical mechanics
  • Study the relationship between forces and potentials in non-conservative systems
  • Investigate the differences between Galilean and Lorentz transformations
  • Learn about the role of friction in classical mechanics and its derivation from microscopic interactions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of classical mechanics, and researchers interested in the foundational principles of motion and force interactions in closed systems.

hgandh
Messages
26
Reaction score
2
The equations of motions for a closed system consisting of ##N## particles are:
$$m_i \vec x_i'' = \sum_{j \neq i}^N \vec F(\vec x_i, \vec x_i', \vec x_j, \vec x_j')$$
$$ i = 1,..., N$$
Now if we impose the requirement that this closed system be symmetric under Galilean transformations, do we get the requirement that
$$\vec F_i = - \frac {\partial V} {\partial x_i} + \frac {d} {dt} (\frac {\partial V} {\partial x_i'})$$
?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not think so. Even if force does not come from potential V, e.g. friction, Galilean transformation stands.
 
mitochan said:
I do not think so. Even if force does not come from potential V, e.g. friction, Galilean transformation stands.
The underlying interactions at the microscopic level that give rise to friction are derivable from potentials.
 
Let me see. In your last equation how do ##x_i## and ##x'_i## relate ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
anuttarasammyak said:
Let me see. In your last equation how do ##x_i## and ##x'_i## relate ?
prime denotes derivative with respect to time
 
I see. Then how do ##\mathbf{F}## in your first equation and ##\mathbf{F_i}## in your last equation relate? What are the variables of ##V## ?
 
I assume
F_i :=\sum_{j=1}^{N} F(x_i, \dot{x}_i,x_j, \dot{x}_j)
where Newton's third law says
F(x_i, \dot{x}_i,x_j, \dot{x}_j)=-F(x_j, \dot{x}_j,x_i, \dot{x}_i)
so F(x_i, \dot{x}_i,x_i, \dot{x}_i)=0

Symmetry of translation and Galelian transformation does not change acceleration in LHS so in RHS
<br /> F(x_i, \dot{x}_i,x_j, \dot{x}_j)= F(x_i+Vt+X, \dot{x}_i+V,x_j+Vt+X, \dot{x}_j+V)<br />
for any V and X. In appropriate choices of V and X, it becomes
F(0,0,x_j-x_i,\dot{x}_j-\dot{x}_i)=\mathbf{F}(x_j-x_i,\dot{x}_j-\dot{x}_i)
Thus defined RHS function ##\mathbf{F}## has two parameters, relative coordinate and relative speed.
So as a result
F_i =\sum_{j=1}^{N} \mathbf{F}(x_j-x_i,\dot{x}_j-\dot{x}_i)

\mathbf{F}(x_j-x_i,\dot{x}_j-\dot{x}_i)=-\mathbf{F}(x_i-x_j,\dot{x}_i-\dot{x}_j)
\mathbf{F}(0,0)=0

I have no idea how to relate this to potential form. EM, whose Lorentz force depends on relative velocity, holds vector and scalar potentials and follow not Galilean but Lorentz transformation.

In the case
\mathbf{F}=\mathbf{F}(x_j-x_i)=\mathbf{F}(r)
\phi(R):=-\int_0^R F(r)dr
would give potential if integration could not change by any integration path.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
856
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K