Does Galilean symmetry imply that all systems are monogenic?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Galilean symmetry on the nature of forces in closed systems, particularly whether such symmetry necessitates that all forces can be derived from a potential function. The scope includes theoretical considerations of motion equations, force definitions, and the relationship between forces and potentials.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equations of motion for a closed system of particles and questions if Galilean symmetry leads to a specific form of force derived from a potential.
  • Another participant argues against the necessity of potential-derived forces, citing examples like friction where forces may not originate from a potential.
  • A subsequent post reiterates the point about friction, suggesting that underlying interactions could still be derived from potentials, though this remains contested.
  • Several participants seek clarification on the relationships between variables in the equations presented, indicating a focus on the mathematical structure of the arguments.
  • One participant elaborates on the implications of Newton's third law in the context of Galilean transformations, proposing a specific form for the force that depends on relative coordinates and speeds.
  • This participant also raises questions about relating the derived force to potential forms, particularly in the context of electromagnetic forces, which do not adhere to Galilean transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether Galilean symmetry implies that all forces must be potential-derived. There is no consensus, as some argue for the necessity of potential forms while others challenge this notion with examples like friction and electromagnetic forces.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of relating forces to potentials, especially in cases where forces arise from non-conservative interactions. The discussion also reflects on the implications of different transformation principles (Galilean vs. Lorentz) on the nature of forces.

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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
896
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K