Prove that a given Lagrangian is not T-V (EM field)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Siberion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Lagrangian
Siberion
Messages
31
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Consider a particle of mass m and electric charge e subject to a uniform electromagnetic field (E(x,t),B(x,t)). We must remember that the force they exert is given by:

F = cE(x,t) + ex' \times B(x,t)

A principle of action that represents such particle subject to the Lorentz force is given by:

I = ∫(\frac{m}{2}x'*x' + eA(x,t)x' + e{\phi}(x,t)dt

Prove that this action doesn't have a Lagrangian in the form T-V.

The Attempt at a Solution



Basically I would like to know what is the most appropriate way to demonstrate this in a formal manner.

By inspection I can see that the first term corresponds to the kinetic energy of the particle, the second term corresponds to the vector potential whose curl leads to the magnetic field. The third term corresponds to the scalar potential from which we can obtain the electric field.

I've already calculated the equations of motion for such lagrangian, and have proven that they indeed lead to the Lorentz force, but I'm kind of confused about how to approach this question.For me, the velocity dependent potential is the term which gives the lagrangian this so called "different form", but how could I formally prove it?

Thanks in advance for your help! It is greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, I think I solved the problem.

We can take the Lagrange equations in the form that follows from the D'Alembert principle, and supose that the generalized force is derivable not from the potential V but from a more general function U, which is usually called generalized potential. Then, after some arrangements, L = T-U
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top