Proving that the free particle lagrangian is rotationally symmetric

stormyweathers
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that the free particle lagrangian is invariant to rotations in $$\Re^{3}$$, but I assume this means invariant up to a gauge term.
$$L=m/2 [\dot{R^{2}} + R^{2}\dot{θ^{2}} +R^{2}Sin^{2}(θ)\dot{\phi^{2}}$$


Homework Equations


I consider an aribtrary infinitesimal rotation:
$$ \theta(t,\epsilon)=\theta(t,0)+\epsilon \Delta \theta $$
$$ \phi(t,\epsilon)=\phi(t,0)+\delta \Delta \phi $$


The Attempt at a Solution


The new angle derivitives are identical to the first, since we evaluate them by taking the time partial of the transformed coordinates.
I am running into issues with the $$Sin^{2}(\theta)$$ term.
$$Sin^{2}(\theta) \rightarrow Sin^{2}(\theta)+2Cos(\theta)Sin(\theta) \epsilon \Delta \theta + O(\epsilon^{2})$$

The epsilon term is throwing me off, because I can't get it to disappear or rewrite it as a gauge term.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Why do you have to use infinitesimal rotations and a Lagrangian written in terms of spherical coordinates?

Whey not apply a finite rotation to

L = \frac{1}{2} m \dot{\vec{r}} \cdot \dot{\vec{r}} ?
 


It seemed more straightforward to apply displacements in the angular directions. To apply a general rotation matrix would be a ton more algebra, no?

I need to use infinitesimal rotations because I am trying to prove a continuous symmetry for noether's theorem
 
Last edited:
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