Potentials of conservative forces

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definition of conservative forces, specifically referencing Goldstein's assertion that a system is conservative only if the potential ##V## is not an explicit function of time. The participants debate whether the potential ##V(r,\dot{r})## can be considered conservative, concluding that it does not meet the criteria of having a closed loop integral of zero. The conversation also touches on the implications of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations in classical mechanics, emphasizing the importance of time independence in determining conservativeness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of conservative forces in physics
  • Familiarity with Lagrangian mechanics
  • Knowledge of Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Basic calculus, particularly integrals and variations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition and properties of conservative forces in classical mechanics
  • Learn about the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics and its applications
  • Explore Hamiltonian mechanics and the role of canonical momenta
  • Investigate the implications of time-dependent potentials in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying classical mechanics, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to conservative forces and their mathematical formulations.

Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
Goldstein writes

"only if ##V## is not an explicit function of time is the system conservative"That means ##V(r,\dot{r})## is a conservative potential, however I think that only potentials of the form ##V(r)## are conservative potentials.

Could you please tell me where I'm going wrong.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PeroK said:
There's a discussion here about whether the magnetic force is conservative or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_force

And, there is plenty of further discussion online.
If we define a conservative force those whose closed loop integral is zero, then ##V(r,\dot{r})## isn't conservative?
That's the definition the author began with.
 
Kashmir said:
If we define a conservative force those whose closed loop integral is zero, then ##V(r,\dot{r})## isn't conservative?
That's the definition the author began with.
I'm not familiar with Goldstein, so I'm not sure what he's up to!
 
I'd not call ##V(\vec{x},\dot{\vec{x}})## a potential, but that's only a semantic question.

The math simply is that the first variation of the action is invariant under time translations if the Lagrangian is not explicitly time dependent, and then the Hamilotonian,
$$H=\dot{q}^k p_k - L=\text{const}$$
along the solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion, where the canonical momenta are defined by
$$p_k=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^k}.$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K