Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector and its generating transformation

  1. Nov 2, 2003 #1
    I have this sort of research project about symmetries under the central potential and I'm stuck on this Runge-Lenz vector. As it is a conserved quantity I was expecting it to come out of Noether's theorem. I can't figure out how. So I go on the net to find out and get 2 answers: infinitesimal Lorentz trasnformation without rotation followed by a time translation and a more explicit article on a canonical transformation. Out of the latter I find that besides the usual space-time transformations come the so called kinematical symmetries, while out of symmetries in the phase space comes another kind of conserved quantities called dynamical. It shows rather clearly that the angle the LRL vector makes with the x axis is the canonical conjugate of L and that's the pair of variables I should canonical transform to.
    What other dynamical symmetries are there in the world that I heven't heared of and how should the conserved quantities look in general terms? Is there an analogue to Noether's theorem that would tell me exactly how the conserved quantity should look like? How did Laplace, Runge and Lenz get the expression for the vector?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2003 #2
  4. Nov 3, 2003 #3
    that's the first result in google's search and the second in teoma's. It doesn't help. It's like trees are green, the sky is blue, the water is wet, stuff like that. It doesn't say why or how.
     
  5. Nov 3, 2003 #4
    Uh, have you actually read the paper cited by that message, the one in Phys Rev?

    The abstract:

     
  6. Nov 3, 2003 #5
    I had it but didn't fully read it. I had just skimmed through it searching for keywords. Didn't find them until I actually read a big part of it. In my reaction I confused it for another one. The thing is that seems to me to elaborate. I don't think that's what I'm supposed to get. I couldn't follow his calculations fully, maybe because I'm tired and I've been fighting this nasty flu for a couple of days. There's got to be an easier way to do it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector and its generating transformation
  1. Runge-Lenz Vector (Replies: 2)

Loading...