Help Me Understand This Author's Point: Noether's Theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding Noether's Theorem and its derivation, specifically the Taylor expansion of the Lagrangian. Participants clarify that the variation in the Lagrangian can be expressed through Taylor expansion, leading to the relationship between the Lagrangian's partial derivatives and symmetry transformations. The conversation also touches on the total time derivative of the Lagrangian and its implications in the context of generalized coordinates. A-level students are encouraged to deepen their understanding of these concepts as they progress in their studies. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of grasping the mathematical foundations behind Noether's Theorem.
TimeRip496
Messages
249
Reaction score
5
I don't understand how the author get to these point. Please help me as i have been spending so much time trying to figure this out but to no avail. Thanks for your help
Source: http://phys.columbia.edu/~nicolis/NewFiles/Noether_theorem.pdf
upload_2015-12-18_4-9-7.png


upload_2015-12-18_4-9-52.png


upload_2015-12-18_4-10-46.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TimeRip496 said:
I don't understand how the author get to these point. Please help me as i have been spending so much time trying to figure this out but to no avail. Thanks for your help
Source: http://phys.columbia.edu/~nicolis/NewFiles/Noether_theorem.pdf
View attachment 93465

View attachment 93466

View attachment 93467
Which step you don't understand? Equation (7) follows from Tylor expanding the Lagrangian:
L(x + \epsilon , y+ \eta) - L(x,y) = L(x,y) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \epsilon + \frac{\partial L}{\partial y} \eta - L(x,y)
The left hand side is the variation in L, i.e., \delta L. Now take x = q, y = \dot{q}, \epsilon = \gamma and \eta = \dot{\gamma}, you get
\delta L = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} .
If the transformation q^{'} = q + \gamma is a symmetry, then \delta L = 0. So, you have
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} = 0.
Now, use the Lagrange equation
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} = \frac{d}{dt}( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) ,
in the first term and combine the two terms
\frac{d}{dt}( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \gamma + (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \frac{d}{dt}\gamma = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \gamma \right) = 0 .
 
  • Like
Likes TimeRip496
samalkhaiat said:
Which step you don't understand? Equation (7) follows from Tylor expanding the Lagrangian:
L(x + \epsilon , y+ \eta) - L(x,y) = L(x,y) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \epsilon + \frac{\partial L}{\partial y} \eta - L(x,y)
The left hand side is the variation in L, i.e., \delta L. Now take x = q, y = \dot{q}, \epsilon = \gamma and \eta = \dot{\gamma}, you get
\delta L = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} .
If the transformation q^{'} = q + \gamma is a symmetry, then \delta L = 0. So, you have
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} = 0.
Now, use the Lagrange equation
samalkhaiat said:
Which step you don't understand? Equation (7) follows from Tylor expanding the Lagrangian:
L(x + \epsilon , y+ \eta) - L(x,y) = L(x,y) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \epsilon + \frac{\partial L}{\partial y} \eta - L(x,y)
The left hand side is the variation in L, i.e., \delta L. Now take x = q, y = \dot{q}, \epsilon = \gamma and \eta = \dot{\gamma}, you get
\delta L = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} .
If the transformation q^{'} = q + \gamma is a symmetry, then \delta L = 0. So, you have
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} = 0.
Now, use the Lagrange equation
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} = \frac{d}{dt}( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) ,
in the first term and combine the two terms
\frac{d}{dt}( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \gamma + (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \frac{d}{dt}\gamma = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \gamma \right) = 0 .

in the first term and combine the two terms
\frac{d}{dt}( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \gamma + (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \frac{d}{dt}\gamma = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \gamma \right) = 0 .

Thanks! But can you show me taylor expansion of the Lagrangian? I am kind of new to this.
 
TimeRip496 said:
Thanks! But can you show me taylor expansion of the Lagrangian? I am kind of new to this.
This is calculus problem! You should be able to Taylor expand function of two variables:
L(q + \epsilon \gamma , \dot{q} + \epsilon \dot{\gamma}) = L(q,\dot{q}) + \epsilon \gamma \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} + \epsilon \dot{\gamma} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{2} \gamma^{2} \frac{\partial^{2}L}{\partial q^{2}} + \cdots
Infinitesimal transformations means that \epsilon \ll 1, so you can take \epsilon^{2} = \epsilon^{3} = \cdots \approx 0 and keep only the linear terms in \epsilon:
L(q + \epsilon \gamma , \dot{q} + \epsilon \dot{\gamma}) = L(q,\dot{q}) + \epsilon \gamma \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} + \epsilon \dot{\gamma} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}
 
samalkhaiat said:
Which step you don't understand? Equation (7) follows from Tylor expanding the Lagrangian:
L(x + \epsilon , y+ \eta) - L(x,y) = L(x,y) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \epsilon + \frac{\partial L}{\partial y} \eta - L(x,y)
The left hand side is the variation in L, i.e., \delta L. Now take x = q, y = \dot{q}, \epsilon = \gamma and \eta = \dot{\gamma}, you get
\delta L = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} .
If the transformation q^{'} = q + \gamma is a symmetry, then \delta L = 0. So, you have
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} \gamma + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \dot{\gamma} = 0.
Now, use the Lagrange equation
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} = \frac{d}{dt}( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) ,
in the first term and combine the two terms
\frac{d}{dt}( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \gamma + (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} ) \frac{d}{dt}\gamma = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} \gamma \right) = 0 .
Thanks! But how do I get to equation 32?
 
TimeRip496 said:
Thanks! But how do I get to equation 32?
Don't you know how to take the total time derivative of L(x(t),y(t);t)? What is your formal Education level?
\frac{dL}{dt} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial y} \frac{dy}{dt}
Now take x=q, \ y = \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dq}{dt} \equiv \dot{q}, so \frac{dy}{dt} = \ddot{q}.
 
samalkhaiat said:
Don't you know how to take the total time derivative of L(x(t),y(t);t)? What is your formal Education level?
\frac{dL}{dt} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial y} \frac{dy}{dt}
Now take x=q, \ y = \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dq}{dt} \equiv \dot{q}, so \frac{dy}{dt} = \ddot{q}.
Sorry sometimes when I do too much my brain gets fuzzy and I tend to forget all my stuff. I just have one last question, as to how the author just come up with this equation
upload_2015-12-20_8-49-29.png


Thanks again for your help! Besides i am a A'level student.
 
samalkhaiat said:
Don't you know how to take the total time derivative of L(x(t),y(t);t)? What is your formal Education level?
\frac{dL}{dt} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial y} \frac{dy}{dt}
Now take x=q, \ y = \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dq}{dt} \equiv \dot{q}, so \frac{dy}{dt} = \ddot{q}.
Sorry. Forget my previous post which was a stupid question. My last question is that in this case, is the degree of freedom referring to the type of axis(e.g. x, y or z) or the position along one axis for the euclidean translational symmetry on this paper?
 
TimeRip496 said:
My last question is that in this case, is the degree of freedom referring to the type of axis(e.g. x, y or z)
It may or may not be. As you are still an A-level student, I would suggest you wait till you are mathematically more able. Or, if you like, you can start by reading about the meaning of generalized coordinates in analytical Mechanics.
Good Luck
 
Back
Top