Is the Emmy Noether Theorem Misunderstood in Space Translation Dynamics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matematikuvol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Noether Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of the Emmy Noether theorem in the context of translation symmetries in Lagrangian mechanics. It highlights that when analyzing Lagrangians, one must consider the possibility that a change in the Lagrangian can be represented as a total time derivative of a function, which may not depend on generalized velocities. The conversation emphasizes that for a generalized translation to be a symmetry, the Lagrangian must not depend on the corresponding generalized coordinate. The participants also explore the relationship between conserved quantities and the canonical momentum derived from the Euler-Lagrange equation. Ultimately, the question remains whether the equality between the partial derivative of the Lagrangian and the total time derivative can coexist without contradiction.
matematikuvol
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
If we watch some translation in space.

L(q_i+\delta q_i,\dot{q}_i,t)=L(q_i,\dot{q}_i,t)+\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}\delta q_i+...

and we say then
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=0

But we know that lagrangians L and L'=L+\frac{df}{dt} are equivalent. How we know that \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}\delta q_i isn't time derivative of some function f?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For more general symmetries than translation symmetries, you need to take into account the possibility that the Lagrangian changes by the total time derivative of a function that is only a function of the generalized coordinates (and perhaps explicitly on time) but not the generalized velocities. An example is invariance under Galileo transformations in Newtonian mechanics (Galileo boosts) or Lorentz boosts in Special Relativity, which both lead to the constant velocity of the center of mass of a closed system of point particles.
 
vanhees71 said:
For more general symmetries than translation symmetries, you need to take into account the possibility that the Lagrangian changes by the total time derivative of a function that is only a function of the generalized coordinates (and perhaps explicitly on time) but not the generalized velocities. An example is invariance under Galileo transformations in Newtonian mechanics (Galileo boosts) or Lorentz boosts in Special Relativity, which both lead to the constant velocity of the center of mass of a closed system of point particles.

I don't want more general symmetries than translation symmetries. I asked my question about invariance under translation symmetries. Can you answered the question about this problem which I asked?
 
But for this problem, you've already given the answer yourself: A generalized translation is a symmetry if the Lagrangian doesn't depend on the corresponding generalized coordinate q_1, and then from the Euler-Lagrange equation, you get

\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_1} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_1}=0,

which means that the conserved quantity is given by the canonical momentum of this variable, i.e.

p_i=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_1}.
 
I think we don't understand each other. My question is. If two lagrangians L'=L+\frac{df}{dt} and L gives us same dynamics. Why can't be that

\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}\delta q=\frac{df}{dt}?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top