Special invariants with few constants of motion

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wkb13
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constants Motion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of constants of motion in systems of particles, particularly focusing on why certain invariants like energy and angular momentum have fewer constants of motion compared to the expected 2Nd for N particles in d dimensions. Participants explore the implications of different interaction potentials on these invariants.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the invariants are due to the specific form of interaction between particles, such as the inverse square law, which leads to conservation of energy and angular momentum.
  • Others suggest that the term "parameters of motion" might be more appropriate than "constants" when discussing these invariants.
  • It is proposed that the special feature of total energy, momentum, and angular momentum is their additivity across particles, although this additivity does not imply conservation in all cases.
  • One participant argues that the interaction potential is the key determining feature for conservation laws, emphasizing that external forces may disrupt additive conservation laws.
  • A hypothetical unphysical force is presented to illustrate how conservation of energy and angular momentum could fail under certain conditions.
  • There is a discussion about the conservation of momentum components, with some participants asserting that while total momentum is conserved, individual components may not be conserved during motion.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the implications of additivity and conservation, with examples provided to illustrate the complexity of these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of additivity and the role of interaction potentials in determining constants of motion. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the nature of these invariants.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific interaction forms and the potential for external forces to alter conservation laws. The discussion also highlights the complexity of defining conserved quantities in various contexts.

wkb13
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Ordinarily, a system of N particles in d dimensions has 2Nd constants of motion, but there are certain invariants, like energy and angular momentum, that have a lot fewer. What's so special about these? Why do they have so few constants of motion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
wkb13 said:
Ordinarily, a system of N particles in d dimensions has 2Nd constants of motion, but there are certain invariants, like energy and angular momentum, that have a lot fewer. What's so special about these? Why do they have so few constants of motion?
Hope I understand this correctly. Not sure why you refer to everything as "constants".
The invariants are due to the special form of the interaction between particles which is [itex]\propto\vec{r}/r^3[/itex]. If you have another fictional, crazy type of interaction, you wouldn't have energy and angular momentum conserved.
 
Yes, I guess "parameters of motion" would have been a more appropriate term. So, if I understand correctly, any inverse square interaction will have fewer than 2Nd parameters?
 
Yes, any inverse square law where action equals reaction (and I believe magnetism also doesn't harm), will conserve the sum of kinetic plus potential energy and also will conserve the the total angular momentum for the system and thus reduce the total number of parameters you need.
 
wkb13 said:
Ordinarily, a system of N particles in d dimensions has 2Nd constants of motion, but there are certain invariants, like energy and angular momentum, that have a lot fewer. What's so special about these? Why do they have so few constants of motion?
The special feature of the total energy, momentum, and the angular momentum is that they are additive in particles. The inter-particle interaction potentials are not involved. It helps in certain simple cases (scattering, for example). The other integrals of motion are harder to find and they are not additive in particles.
 
Bob_for_short said:
The special feature of the total energy, momentum, and the angular momentum is that they are additive in particles.
What means additive? Every quantity can be added up. And we want to consider only those whose sum is constant over time.
And quantities like entropy are additive in the idealized case, but not conserved. So additivity doesn't play a role.

Bob_for_short said:
The inter-particle interaction potentials are not involved.
The interaction potential is the only determining feature. Just imagine a crazy unphysical force equation for the particles with index i:
[tex] F_i=\begin{cases}<br /> C & \text{if }i=j\\<br /> 0 & \text{otherwise}<br /> \end{cases}[/tex]
This physics would make particle j fly away to infinity and there is no conservation of energy of angular momentum.
 
Gerenuk said:
What means additive?
It means that the total momentum is a sum of particle momenta, for example.
The interaction potential is the only determining feature. ...
I speak of inter-particle potentials, not of the external force. In presence of external force the additive conservation laws may not be valid.
 
Bob_for_short said:
It means that the total momentum is a sum of particle momenta, for example.
That also applies for the x-component of particles. The total "x-component" of particle set A and B together is equal to the sum of their individual x-component sums. Yet, the quantity is not conserved during motion.

Bob_for_short said:
I speak of inter-particle potentials, not of the external force. In presence of external force the additive conservation laws may not be valid.
Correct. I should refer to the total force on each particle which should be of the form
[tex] F_i=\sum_{j\neq i} \frac{a_{ij}\hat{r}_{ij}}{r_{ij}^2}[/tex]
[tex] a_{ij}=a_{ji}[/tex]
for energy and momentum and angular momentum to work. That is necessary and sufficient I believe. Well, almost. I guess a conservative velocity dependent force like a magnetic field can also be added and yet the derivations for the conserved quantities would work.
 
Gerenuk said:
That also applies for the x-component of particles. The total "x-component" of particle set A and B together is equal to the sum of their individual x-component sums. Yet, the quantity is not conserved during motion.

Component of what vector? If you speak of momentum, the total vector P is conserved:

dPx/dt = 0, dPy/dt = 0, dPz/dt = 0.

And Px = Σk(px)k, etc.
 
  • #10
Bob_for_short said:
Component of what vector? If you speak of momentum, the total vector P is conserved
Oh come on. I forgot to say component of velocity, but it's really not hard to make up additive quantities that are not conserved. How about [itex]x+v_y\cdot 1\mathrm{s}[/itex] where x is x coordinate and v_y the y component of the velocity.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K