Identifying conserved quantities using Noether's theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on identifying conserved quantities using Noether's theorem for various potentials. For the first potential, energy is conserved, and linear momentum is conserved in the y and z directions, while angular momentum is conserved around the x-axis. In the second case, the system is invariant under rotation around the z-axis, leading to conserved angular momentum in that direction. For the third potential, it is concluded that angular momentum is conserved in all directions due to the spherical symmetry of the potential. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the symmetry of the system to identify conserved quantities accurately.
Snydes
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I've been asked to find the conserved quantities of the following potentials: i) U(r) = U(x^2), ii) U(r) = U(x^2 + y^2) and iii) U(r) = U(x^2 + y^2 + z^2). For the first one, there is no time dependence or dependence on the y or z coordinate therefore energy is conserved and linear momentum in the y and z direction are conserved. I'm having trouble with the angular momentum. It would seem to me that since there is only a dependence on x, that the lagrangian would be invariant under rotations around the y and z-axis and thus angular momentum in those directions is conserved. Similar approach for the other two potentials. Can anyone give me any more depth or background on this, what would be a concrete way to approach these types of problems so I can be more confident in my answer
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Snydes said:
since there is only a dependence on x, that the lagrangian would be invariant under rotations around the y and z-axis and thus angular momentum in those directions is conserved.
You are halfway there, but draw the wrong conclusion. Which axis can you rotate around without changing x?
 
Orodruin said:
You are halfway there, but draw the wrong conclusion. Which axis can you rotate around without changing x?

If I rotate around the x axis, the x coordinate should remain unchanged then should it not, therefore the angular momentum in the x direction is conserved?

For the second case, would this mean that we are solely dealing with the xy plane, thus a rotation around the z axis leaves the system invariant and angular momentum in the z direction is conserved?
 
Correct.
 
Orodruin said:
Correct.

What about the third case? my first though would be that since U(r(vector))=U(r^2(scalar)) then it is independent of any rotational angle (theta, phi) then angular momentum is conserved for all space. Is this true?
 
Snydes said:
What about the third case? my first though would be that since U(r(vector))=U(r^2(scalar)) then it is independent of any rotational angle (theta, phi) then angular momentum is conserved for all space. Is this true?

Angular momentum is conserved in all directions (rather than "all space"). A general rotation has three angles (see Euler angles).
 
  • Like
Likes Snydes
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top