Effective potential in a central field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of effective potential in a central field, particularly examining the differences between using energy and Lagrangian formulations in classical mechanics. Participants explore the implications of redistributing terms in the kinetic and potential energy expressions and the resulting effective potentials.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the process of deriving the effective potential Ueff = U + L2/(2mr2) from the total energy E = T + U, emphasizing the role of angular momentum as a conserved quantity.
  • Another participant argues that using the Lagrangian L = T - U leads to a different effective potential Veff = U - L2/(2mr2) and questions why the energy approach is preferred over the Lagrangian approach.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of restricting to first integrals, with one participant expressing confusion about why the Lagrangian cannot be manipulated similarly to derive an effective potential.
  • A later reply highlights that the Lagrangian formalism is invariant under point transformations, suggesting that transformations involving canonical momenta require the Hamiltonian formalism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of conservation laws and the distinction between energy and Lagrangian in this context. However, there is disagreement about the implications of using the Lagrangian for deriving effective potentials, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the differences in the resulting systems described by the two approaches.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the Lagrangian is not conserved, which raises questions about the validity of transformations involving it. There is also mention of the difference in Lagrangians resulting from the effective potentials, which does not appear to be a full time-derivative, complicating the interpretation of the systems described.

pbilous
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Hi, I am confused by a point which should be relatively simple. When we consider classical motion of a particle in a central field U(r), we write the total energy E = T + U, where T is the kinetic energy. The kinetic energy contains initially r, r' and φ' (where ' denotes the time derivative). We replace φ' via the angular momentum L, which is an integral of motion due to the rotational symmetry. The kinetic energy takes then the form T=mr'2/2 + L2/(2mr2). Finally we attribute the latter term to the potential energy and introduce the effective potential Ueff = U + L2/(2mr2). The energy E remains the same under such term redistiribution and we obtain effectively 1D motion in potential Ueff.

Now the question. If we consider the Lagrangian L = T - U instead of energy E =T + U and carry out the same procedure, then such "redistribution" of the terms would lead to different effective potential Veff = U - L2/(2mr2). Why is then the way with E "better" than the one with L?

Alternatively one could formulate it as follows. When we shift the term L2/(2mr2) to the potential energy Ueff = U + L2/(2mr2), the total energy E = T + U remains the same, but at the same time the Lagrangian L = T - U changes by L2/(mr2). Doesn't it describe already a completely different system? Why wouldn't we choose to preserve L instead of E and introduce Veff = U - L2/(2mr2)?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
The trick is to use the conservation laws, and the conserved quantities are usually energy (Lagrangian doesn't depend explicitly on time) and the canonical momenta of cyclic coordinates (which come also from symmetries, i.e., the choice of the variables takes into account some symmetry like rotational symmetry around an axis or even around a point). If you have enough conserved quantities "first integrals" you can express the conserved energy in terms of only one variable, and then the entire motion is effectively a one-dimensional motion of this variable in the corresponding effective potential. All other variables can be then found by simple integration after the one-dimensional problem is solved.

The reason to use the energy rather than the Lagrangian in this context is simply that energy is often a conserved quantity.
 
Dear vanhees71, thanks for your comment. I perfectly agree with you that the important difference between the energy and the Lagrangian in this context is that the energy is the first integral and is conserved, whereas the Lagrangian is changing somehow with the motion of the particle.

However, I still don't see why it is necessary to restrict only to first integrals (your last sentence). I mean, we can express φ' via the angular momentum and substitute into the Lagrangian as well. Then we redistiribute the terms such that we get the "wrong" effective potential. The Lagrangian is not conserved, but I don't see in this fact any problem why we couldn't carry out the described procedure.

On the other hand. Even if we stick to energy E = T + U = mr'2/2 + M2/(2mr2) + U and introduce the "correct" effective potential Ueff = U + M2/(2mr2) (where M is the angular momentum), something strange happens to the Lagrangian. Indeed, the Lagrangian for the obtained effective 1D motion is L = mr'2/2 - Ueff = mr'2/2 - M2/(2mr2) - U. This differs from the initial Lagrangian by M2/(mr2), although the system described is exactly the same. This difference M2/(mr2) does not look like a full time-derivative, so these Lagrangians describe really two different systems. Do you have any idea how to resolve this contradiction?
 
The Lagrangian formalism is only form invariant under point transformations, i.e., under diffeomorphisms transforming a set of generalized coordinates ##q## to another set ##q'##, i.e., you cannot expect when doing transformations involving the canonical momenta to get a valid Lagrangian. For that you need the Hamiltonian formalism, where you are free to use the larger class of canonical transformations, which is a transformation of the phase-space variables ##(p,q)##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pbilous

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K