Is My Calculation for the Conserved Quantity in the Kepler Problem Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kepler
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the verification of the conserved quantity associated with the Runge-Lenz vector in the context of the Kepler problem, specifically using Noether's theorem. The Lagrangian is given as L = (1/2)q̇² + q⁻¹, and the k-th component of the Runge-Lenz vector is defined as A_k = q̇²q_k - q·q̇q̇_k - q_k/q. The user initially struggles to express the variation in the Lagrangian, δL, in the required form but ultimately realizes that their calculations were correct, albeit presented in a complex manner. This conclusion is supported by external references, including a Wikipedia article on the Runge-Lenz vector.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics and Noether's theorem
  • Familiarity with the Runge-Lenz vector and its significance in celestial mechanics
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly in the context of variations and derivatives
  • Basic understanding of vector calculus and coordinate transformations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Noether's theorem in various physical systems
  • Explore the derivation and implications of the Runge-Lenz vector in orbital mechanics
  • Learn about variations in Lagrangian mechanics and how to compute them effectively
  • Investigate advanced topics in celestial mechanics, focusing on conserved quantities
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying classical mechanics, particularly those interested in the dynamics of celestial bodies and the mathematical foundations of conservation laws.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
There must be something I'm totally missing here.

The situation is the following.

I am asked to show that given the lagrangian for the Kepler problem,

[tex]L=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2+q^{-1}[/tex]

the k-th component of the Runge-Lenz vector,

[tex]A_k=\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2q_k-\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{\dot{q}}<br /> \dot{q}_k-q_k/q[/tex]

is the conserved quantity associated (in the sense of Noether's thm) with the infinitesimal coordinate transformation [itex]\mathbf{q}\rightarrow\mathbf{q}+\delta \mathbf{q}[/itex], where [itex]\delta q_i = \epsilon(\dot{q}_iq_k-\frac{1}{2}q_i\dot{q}_k-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{q}}\delta_{ik})[/itex], epsilon being the infinitesimal parameter.

Following Noether's theorem, I know that if [tex]\delta L=L(\mathbf{q}+\delta \mathbf{q}, \mathbf{\dot{q}}+\delta \mathbf{\dot{q}},t)-L(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{\dot{q}},t)[/itex] can be written as <br /> <br /> [tex]\delta L=\epsilon \frac{d}{dt}\Lambda(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{\dot{q}},t)+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)[/tex]<br /> <br /> then the quantity<br /> <br /> [tex]F_k:=\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}(\dot{q}_iq_k-\frac{1}{2}q_i\dot{q}_k-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{q}}\delta_{ik}) - \Lambda[/tex]<br /> <br /> is conserved. By direct comparison of F_k with A_k I find that Lambda must be<br /> <br /> [tex]\Lambda = \frac{q_k}{q}[/tex]<br /> <br /> (also, this is confirmed by the wiki article on the Runge-Lenz vector: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runge-Lenz#Noether.27s_theorem" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runge-Lenz#Noether.27s_theorem</a> )<br /> <br /> So what remains to be done is to show by direct calculation that indeed, <br /> <br /> [tex]\delta L=\epsilon \frac{d}{dt}(\frac{q_k}{q})+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)[/tex]<br /> <br /> So I expand [itex]\delta L[/itex]:<br /> <br /> [tex]\delta L= \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2+2\mathbf{\dot{q}}\cdot \delta\mathbf{\dot{q}}+(\delta\mathbf{\dot{q}})^2)+(\mathbf{q}^2+2\mathbf{q}\cdot \delta\mathbf{q}+(\delta\mathbf{q})^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\dot{q}}^2-(\mathbf{q}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]<br /> <br /> And here I find it impossible to put this in a form [itex]\delta L=\epsilon A+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)[/itex] because of all these guys in the numerator <i>and</i> shielded by a square root. I have also tried "cheating", i.e. say "since epsilon is arbitrarily small, I can neglect this and this term" but nothing even comes close to the form I want.<br /> <br /> So I concluded that there must be something fundamentally flawed about the reasoning laid above. Anyone sees?<br /> <br /> Thanks for reading!<u>P.S.</u> I would appreciate feedbacks, so that if I get a few feedbacks that the above is right, I will post more of my work so we can find where I'm going wrong.[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Solved, thanks. Turns out I had the right answer but in an hostile form that made it difficult to recognize.
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
3K