Lagrangian mechanics -- Initial questions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the foundations of Lagrangian mechanics as presented in the Landau-Lifshitz textbook, focusing on the treatment of non-interacting and interacting particles. Participants explore the implications of velocity-dependent interaction terms and the structure of the Lagrangian in relation to the principles of homogeneity and isotropy in space and time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Lagrangian for non-interacting particles can be expressed as a sum of individual Lagrangians, while introducing interaction terms complicates this structure.
  • Another participant suggests that dependence of interaction terms on velocities does not necessarily imply finite propagation velocity of interactions, proposing that it could indicate a force that varies with velocity.
  • There is mention of the Coriolis force as an example of a velocity-dependent force that does not involve finite propagation velocity, raising questions about the relevance of non-inertial frames.
  • A participant questions whether the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy in the textbook's framework affect the discussion about velocity-dependent interactions.
  • It is noted that the Lagrangian is indeterminate to some extent, allowing for flexibility in its formulation as long as the correct equations of motion are derived.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of velocity dependence in interaction terms and whether it necessitates finite propagation velocity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these concepts within the framework of Lagrangian mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of their discussion, particularly concerning the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy, and the implications of these assumptions on the treatment of interaction terms.

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   Reactions: 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:)
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K