Undergrad Mathematical proof for the Lagrangian function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the homogeneity of space and the form of the Lagrangian function in mechanics, specifically arguing that the Lagrangian should depend only on the square of the velocity, v^2. The argument presented suggests that if the Lagrangian function were to depend on position, it would be impossible to find a function that satisfies the conditions imposed by homogeneity. Participants emphasize the need for mathematical proofs to establish the constraints of temporal homogeneity and spatial isotropy on the Lagrangian. There is also a suggestion to explore the implications of multiple symmetries to strengthen the argument. Overall, the conversation seeks a rigorous mathematical foundation for these physical principles.
Silver2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
In Landau's mechanics book, I saw them argue that due to the homogeneity of time and space, the isotropy of space leads to the Lagrangian function depending only on v^2. But i want a mathematical proof for the Lagrangian function independent of position q, time t and velocity vector.
In Landau's mechanics book, I saw them argue that due to the homogeneity of time and space, the isotropy of space leads to the Lagrangian function depending only on v^2. But i want a mathematical proof for the Lagrangian function independent of position q, time t and velocity vector.
Homogeneity of space:
We have ## \mathcal{L}(\vec{r}, \vec{\dot{r}}, t) ##, and ## \vec{r} \to \vec{r}' = \vec{r} + \vec{a} ##, because homogeneity of space so equations of motion should be the same. Therefore, the Lagrangian function differs only by a total derivative with respect to time ## \Omega(\vec{r}, t) ##:
$$
\mathcal{L}' = \mathcal{L} + \frac{d}{dt}\Omega(\vec{r}, t)
$$
We assume that ## a \ll 1 ##, and we get:
$$
\vec{a} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \vec{r}} = \frac{d\Omega}{dt}
$$
At this point, I argue that if the Lagrangian function depends on position, it will be impossible to find an function ##\Omega(\vec{r}, t)## that satisfies the above equation, so the Lagrangian function cannot depend on position. Is my argument above reasonable and coherent?

And I need help with similar mathematical proofs for temporal homogeneity and spatial isotropy. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Silver2007 said:
And I need help with similar mathematical proofs for temporal homogeneity and spatial isotropy. Thanks
How do you suppose these could be proved mathematically? Space and time are related to the physical universe. You can only assume they are homogeneous and isotropic - or prove this from more fundamental physical assumptions. Mathematics would not be compromised if space were non-homogeneous. In fact, you always have to be prepared for evidence that, say, space is not homogeneous.
 
PeroK said:
How do you suppose these could be proved mathematically? Space and time are related to the physical universe. You can only assume they are homogeneous and isotropic - or prove this from more fundamental physical assumptions. Mathematics would not be compromised if space were non-homogeneous. In fact, you always have to be prepared for evidence that, say, space is not homogeneous.
Sure, but OP is asking under the assumption that the laws of physics are say homogeneous with respect to time and space, then how do you show that this constrains the Lagrangian to be only a function of velocity squared.
 
jbergman said:
Sure, but OP is asking under the assumption that the laws of physics are say homogeneous with respect to time and space, then how do you show that this constrains the Lagrangian to be only a function of velocity squared.
If you read my post, you'll see I answered his second question. Which was:

Silver2007 said:
And I need help with similar mathematical proofs for temporal homogeneity and spatial isotropy. Thanks
 
Silver2007 said:
TL;DR Summary: In Landau's mechanics book, I saw them argue that due to the homogeneity of time and space, the isotropy of space leads to the Lagrangian function depending only on v^2. But i want a mathematical proof for the Lagrangian function independent of position q, time t and velocity vector.

In Landau's mechanics book, I saw them argue that due to the homogeneity of time and space, the isotropy of space leads to the Lagrangian function depending only on v^2. But i want a mathematical proof for the Lagrangian function independent of position q, time t and velocity vector.
Homogeneity of space:
We have ## \mathcal{L}(\vec{r}, \vec{\dot{r}}, t) ##, and ## \vec{r} \to \vec{r}' = \vec{r} + \vec{a} ##, because homogeneity of space so equations of motion should be the same. Therefore, the Lagrangian function differs only by a total derivative with respect to time ## \Omega(\vec{r}, t) ##:
$$
\mathcal{L}' = \mathcal{L} + \frac{d}{dt}\Omega(\vec{r}, t)
$$
We assume that ## a \ll 1 ##, and we get:
$$
\vec{a} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \vec{r}} = \frac{d\Omega}{dt}
$$
At this point, I argue that if the Lagrangian function depends on position, it will be impossible to find an function ##\Omega(\vec{r}, t)## that satisfies the above equation, so the Lagrangian function cannot depend on position. Is my argument above reasonable and coherent?

And I need help with similar mathematical proofs for temporal homogeneity and spatial isotropy. Thanks
What about something like##\Omega(\vec{r}, t)=\vec{r} ^2##?

I suggest proving it first without the total derivative term. To prove there isn't a total derivative difference is harder and I am not sure it is true. I believe you would have to at least use multiple symmetries to show it.
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
473
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K