Instantaneous force propagation in classical mechanics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of instantaneous force propagation in classical mechanics as presented in Landau & Lifshitz's "Classical Mechanics." The key point is that potential energy's dependence on particle positions at a given instant implies that changes in one particle's position instantaneously affect others, adhering to the principles of absolute time and Galileo's relativity. The user explores the implications of non-instantaneous interactions, particularly how they would violate the invariance of potential under Galilean transformations, ultimately concluding that for consistency with classical mechanics, interaction propagation must be instantaneous.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics principles, particularly those outlined in Landau & Lifshitz's "Classical Mechanics."
  • Familiarity with Lagrangian mechanics and the formulation of Lagrange's equations.
  • Knowledge of Galilean transformations and their implications in physics.
  • Concept of potential energy and its role in particle interactions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of instantaneous versus finite velocity interactions in classical mechanics.
  • Explore the derivation and applications of Lagrange's equations in different inertial frames.
  • Investigate the role of total time derivatives in Lagrangian mechanics and their impact on physical laws.
  • Learn about the mathematical formulation of Galilean transformations and their effects on potential energy.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and researchers interested in classical mechanics, particularly those focusing on the foundations of force interactions and Lagrangian dynamics.

aloyisus
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I'm working my way (slowly) through Landau & Lif***z Classical Mechanics. I'm finally nearing the end of chapter one, and although I hit another stumbling block, I think I've got it now. If anyone has the time to check my reasoning, I'd be grateful.

I will quote the passage that was confusing me in full:

"The fact that the potential energy depends only on the positions of the particles at a given instant shows that a change in the position of any particle instantaneously affects all the other particles. We may say that the interactions are instantaneously propagated. The necessity for interactions in classical mechanics to be of this type is closely related to the premises upon which the subject is based, namely the absolute nature of time and Galileo's relativity principle. If the propagation of interactions were not instantaneous, but took place with a finite velocity, then that velocity would be different in different frames of reference in relative motion, since the absoluteness of time necessarily implies that the ordinary law of composition of velocities is applicable to all phenomena. The laws of motion for interacting bodies would then be different in different inertial frames, a result which would contradict the relativity principle."

And here's my attempt to understand this:

Consider a 2 particle system. Particle 2 is acted upon by a force due to particle 1, but because it does not act instantaneously, the strength of force depends on the relative positions of particle 1 at the current time t, and particle 2 at an earlier time [itex]t - \Delta t[/itex], where [itex]\Delta t[/itex] represents the time taken for the interaction to propagate through space.

i.e. [itex]U = U(\left |\mathbf{r}_{1}(t) - \mathbf{r}_{2}(t-\Delta t)\right |)[/itex]

Clearly [itex]\Delta t[/itex] is a function of the state of the system, i.e. it will vary depending on relative positions and velocities of the particles. It is also the time interval between two events, an interaction (or could I instead say 'a signal' here?) leaving particle 1 and reaching particle 2. Moreover, because of the absoluteness of time in classical mechanics, [itex]\Delta t[/itex] is the same in all reference frames.

For the laws of physics to be the same in a different inertial frame traveling with constant velocity -k relative to the original frame, the potential U must be invariant under a Galilean transformation r' = r + kt. So we have [itex]\mathbf{r}'(t-\Delta t) = \mathbf{r}(t-\Delta t) + \mathbf{k}t - \mathbf{k}\Delta t[/itex], and by substituting into the potential, we can see that while the kt terms cancel, there is a [itex]\mathbf{k}\Delta t[/itex] term left over.

i.e. [itex]U' = U(\left |\mathbf{r}_{1}(t) - \mathbf{r}_{2}(t-\Delta t) + \mathbf{k}\Delta t\right |)[/itex]

So now the potential is dependent on the reference frame, which it can't be, and the only way around this is to make [itex]\Delta t = 0[/itex].

Does this explanation make sense? Also, and perhaps most confusingly for me, if we consider that the Lagrangian is only defined to within a total time derivative of a function f(r,t), could that invalidate the final part of my argument (i.e. the potential might still be invariant under Galilean transformation if the difference between U' and U is a total time derivative)?

If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
All looks good...I don't know about the last question regarding the Langrangian.
 
Thanks for looking over it, Naty1. I'm glad it makes sense.

I'll restate my question about the Lagrangian.

In order for the laws of physics must be the same in all inertial reference frames, Lagrange's equations of motion must keep the same form in all inertial reference frames, which places restrictions on the Lagrangian. More specifically, for the Lagrangian to give identical equations of motion when it undergoes a Galilean transormation (r' = r + kt, v' = v + k), the transformed Lagrangian L' must take this form:

L' = L + d/dt f(r,t)

So we're allowed to have this extra term, and if it's present, the laws of physics remain unchanged under the transformation.

The question is, going back to my original post where I said:

[itex]U' = U(\left |\mathbf{r}_{1}(t) - \mathbf{r}_{2}(t-\Delta t) + \mathbf{k}\Delta t\right |)[/itex]

How can I satisfy myself that this transformed potential isn't just the original potential with an extra d/dt f(r,t), which would leave the physics invariant?

Anybody got any ideas? And thanks again for reading.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
592
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K