I Does Galilean symmetry imply that all systems are monogenic?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equations of motion for a closed system of N particles and the implications of imposing symmetry under Galilean transformations. It questions whether this symmetry necessitates a specific form of force derived from a potential V, particularly in the context of frictional forces. The relationship between the variables x_i and x'_i is clarified, with the prime denoting a time derivative. The conversation highlights that the force function F must respect Newton's third law and can be expressed in terms of relative coordinates and speeds. Ultimately, the potential form of the force is debated, especially in relation to electromagnetic forces, which follow Lorentz transformations rather than Galilean ones.
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 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
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top