Lagrangian mechanics -- Initial questions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on Lagrangian mechanics as presented in the Landau-Lifshitz course, emphasizing the derivation of equations of motion for non-interacting particles and the implications of homogeneity and isotropy in space and time. It explores the nature of interaction terms, questioning whether their dependence on velocities implies finite propagation velocities for interactions. The conversation highlights that such dependence may represent forces that vary with velocity without necessarily indicating finite propagation speeds. Additionally, it notes that the Lagrangian can be flexible, allowing for interpretations that yield correct equations of motion, even when considering non-inertial frames. Overall, the discussion delves into the foundational principles of Lagrangian mechanics and their implications for understanding particle interactions.
Umaxo
Messages
51
Reaction score
12
Hi,

I am reading Landau-Lifshitz course in theoretical physics 1. volume, mechanics. The mechanics is derived using variatonal principle from the start.

At first they start with point particles, that do not interact with each other. Thus the equations of motions must be independent for the particles and therefore lagrangian might be written as sum of lagrangians of individual particles.

Now, if we assume homogeneity and isotropy of space and homogenity of time, then lagrangian of free particle cannot depend on spatial coordinates, time coordinate, nor can it depend on direction of velocity (independence of lagrangian on higher derivatives is assumed as experimental fact):
$$L=L\left(v^2\right)$$

Then if we use galileo relativity principle we can compare lagrangian in two systems moving relative to each other and we get usual kinetic term.

If we want mechanical system of n noninteracting free particles, we just use additivity of lagrangian. However, if we want particles to be interacting, in the book they subtract term: $$U=U\left(\vec{r}_1...\vec{r}_n\right)$$
This form is good, because it is evident that propagation velocity of interactions is infinite which is needed because of absolutness of time and galileo relativity principle.
As the book goes on, one finds out that explicit dependence on time coordinate means there is some kind of external field, or at least one can interpret it as such.

Now, I have two questions:

1.) Does dependence of interacting term on velocities means there is finite propagation velocity of interactions? If not, what would including such dependence mean?


2) The lagrangian in the form of kinetic (free particles) term + interaction term is in the book assumed. Obviously, if interaction term could depend on velocities, one can always write lagrangian in this form. But if not, does it make sense to have lagrangian with more general kinetic term than just free particle lagrangian?

Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Umaxo said:
Now, I have two questions:

1.) Does dependence of interacting term on velocities means there is finite propagation velocity of interactions? If not, what would including such dependence mean?

That doesn't necessarily mean that interactions propagate at a finite velocity. For now you could interpret such dependence as the presence of a force which is stronger or weaker depending of the particles' velocity. When you get to non-inertial frames of reference, you will learn about Coriolis force, which is velocity-dependent and can be derivated from a potential where v appears explicitly, and there is no finite popagation velocity to speak about.

Umaxo said:
2) The lagrangian in the form of kinetic (free particles) term + interaction term is in the book assumed. Obviously, if interaction term could depend on velocities, one can always write lagrangian in this form. But if not, does it make sense to have lagrangian with more general kinetic term than just free particle lagrangian?
The lagrangian is actually quite indetermined, so there comes a point where you can interpret its terms as you please as long as you get the correct equations of motion out of it.
 
  • Like
Likes Umaxo
angrystudent said:
When you get to non-inertial frames of reference, you will learn about Coriolis force, which is velocity-dependent and can be derivated from a potential where v appears explicitly, and there is no finite popagation velocity to speak about.

Make sense... But in the book, they assume to be in frame of reference in which space and time are homogeneous and isotropic. Doesnt this have any influence on your discussion?
 
Umaxo said:
But in the book, they assume to be in frame of reference in which space and time are homogeneous and isotropic. Doesnt this have any influence on your discussion?

Ok i thought about it and this question is no longer relevant for me. However, another quetion arose in me. Sadly i don't have a lot of time right now. but i will be back soon:)
 
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...
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?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top