Integrals of motion some more important than others?

AI Thread Summary
Not all integrals of motion are equally significant; some have profound theoretical importance due to their connection with symmetries in the system's Lagrangian. While all integrals of motion are conserved, those linked to fundamental symmetries, like linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy, hold special relevance. In the case of a free particle with five integrals of motion, the total angular momentum is conserved as a single entity, unlike linear momentum, where each component is conserved individually. This distinction highlights the importance of understanding the underlying symmetries that give rise to these integrals. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity in differentiating between the conservation of motion and the theoretical significance of those conserved quantities.
Master J
Messages
219
Reaction score
0
I've been reading Mechanics of Landau Lifgarbagez. They state that "not all integrals of motion are of equal importance", and that "there are some whose constancy is of profound importance"...these ones are conserved for the motion.

What confuses me is that I thought that's what an integral of the motion was! A function of the phase space coordinates that was conserved for the motion! What i seeem to be reading is that integrals of motion are conserved, but some are more important because they are conserved? Can someone clarify this?

On a similar point, for a single free particle with (2s - 1) = 5 integrals of motion, with s being the degrees of freedom, what are its integrals of motion? I would reason them as:
1) Linear momentum in x direction.
2) As above for y.
3) As above for z.
4) Total energy.
5) Angular momentum.

If that is the case, the howcome the angular momentum only takes one integral of motion? Surely the angular momentum vector can be expressed in terms of its x,y and z components?

Edit: I think i just solved the last part for myself...only the TOTAL angular momentum is conserved..unlike linear, where its individual components are each conserved...is that correct?
Any input helping to clear this up for me is highly appreciated!
Thanks! :cool:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think Landau here is not saying that some integrals of motion are more important because they remain constant throughout the motion (this is valid, by definition, for any integral of motion), but that there are some such that the fact itself that they are constants is of special theoretical importance. For example, some integral of motion may be due to a particular symmetry in the lagrangian of the system (any symmetry gives rise to an integral of motion). Among them, linear momentum is linked to space homogeneity, angular momentum to space isotropy and energy to time invariance. There may be many other integrals of motion, but they may not have such an important physical interpretation. Hope it helps
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top