Lagranian:Generalized momentum

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayveldkamp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of generalized momentum derived from the Euler-Lagrange equations, particularly in the context of a relativistic particle in an electromagnetic field. It highlights that while generalized momentum can differ from actual mechanical momentum, the extra term in the generalized momentum, represented as qA, has significant implications. Participants debate the relationship between generalized momentum and mechanical momentum, emphasizing that they are fundamentally different concepts. The conversation also touches on the challenges of defining generalized angular momentum in non-orthogonal configuration spaces. Overall, the complexities of generalized momentum in electromagnetic contexts are underscored, indicating a need for careful consideration of the underlying physics.
rayveldkamp
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am wondering how to physically interpret the generalized momentum quantity derived from the Euler-Lagrange equations. For some Lagrangians is it equal to the actual momentum for the particle, however i have noticed that for a relativistic particle moving in an electromagnetic field the generalized momentum is not equal to the actual relatvistic momentum.
Could someone explain why this is so, or maybe explain the physical significance of the extra term in the generalized momentum for this EM field case?
Thanks

Ray
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The relativistic particle "couples" or interacts with the free relativistic field and this coupling generates a new term to the momentum. The idea is that the Lagrangian's derivative wrt to the generalized coordinate doesn't have a physical significance, but it has a geometric one.

Daniel.
 
I have a question on this.
As the OP says, the generalized momentum (P_g) of a charge in an electromagnetic field is different from its *mechanical* momentum (P_m). Specifically we find that:
P_g=P_m - qA [1]
where A is the vector potential. This iis the momentum conserved.
However, if we work differently by starting from the Lorentz force, after some calculations (for example following Griffiths), we find that the conserved momentum is:
P_g=P_m + Integral( S dV) [2]
where:
S: Poynting vector
dV: volume

Equations [1] and [2] must be equal, so we conclude:
qA= - Integral( S dV)


Can this be true??
 
The apove post has probably a mistake.
So, can anyone help me with the question *what is the physical meaning of the 'qA'* term?

Thanks in advance!
 
The generalized momentum have no meaning. Can be the angular momentum, the mechanical momentum or just something. The problem is that the generalized coordinate can have units different from length. Depending the generalized coordinate the generalized momentum change. The generalized momentum can be associated with translation in the configuration space, but the momentum is associated with translation in the actual space of the problem.
qA= - Integral( S dV)?
Is not true. In EM the momentum of the wave is associated with the poynting vector, but the vector potential is associated with the generalized momentum of the charged particle. That's two totally different things. never confuse mechanical momentum and generalized momentum, are two totally different things.

Well i want to ask a question here. If the configuration space is isotropic, with have some quantity that is conserved and we can call it the generalized momentum i suppose. The problem is that the generalized coordinates are not orthogonal in general, then i don't know how to rotate the system in configuration space and also i don't know the form that takes the generalized angular momentum. Normally in the discussion of rotation the different text use orthogonal configuration space, but that not always the case. My question is:

Is possible to define the generalized angular momentum for any configuration space in general?
that mean like a qxp or something like that. Well maybe using forms and tangential space. Maybe is impossible because of the arbitrariness of the configuration space.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top