A The Lagrangian a function of 'v' only and proving v is constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding why velocity is considered constant in the context of the Lagrangian being a function of the magnitude of velocity squared. The original poster questions how to prove that velocity remains constant when the Lagrangian is dependent only on this magnitude. Responses clarify that while the Lagrangian's derivative with respect to velocity components is not constant, the underlying relationship indicates that if the Lagrangian is a function of speed alone, then the velocity must indeed be constant. The conversation also touches on the relevance of the kinetic term in the Lagrangian, which supports the conclusion about constant velocity. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the nuances of deriving constant velocity from the properties of the Lagrangian.
Ren Figueroa
Hi everyone. So I'm going through Landau/Lifshitz book on Mechanics and I read through a topic on inertial frames. So, because we are in an inertial frame, the Lagrangian ends up only being a function of the magnitude of the velocity only (v2) Now my question to you is, how does one prove that the velocity is constant like in (3.2)? When I first went through it, I thought it was obvious because it makes sense that the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to velocity has to be a constant in order for the derivative with respect to time to equal zero. But a professor, who is mentoring me, brought it to my attention that this is not as obvious as it looks and once he explained to me why it wasn't obvious, I started to think so too.
Actually, when I think about it, if the Lagrangian is only a function of the magnitude of velocity, then the derivative with respect to time automatically should be zero. But, this doesn't automatically prove that velocity is constant. (At least it doesn't to me) I am curious to know anyone else's explanation/feedback on this subject. Thanks!
(Also, I am not sure if this is a graduate level text or undergraduate but I have already read undergraduate texts by Morin and Taylor. I put the thread under "graduate level" based on what I found on other forums but if it is actually and undergrad text then I apologize!)
I5q0K_reCjlH2qP1Hb3Zk9CmJ-a6XXg-kX_hTsips4C0J-KGStm_BYR1MfI0LHQXLharrYy9elTV7SrGv=w1308-h1742-no.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While the Lagrangian is a function of the speed only, its derivative with respect to the components of ##\vec v## are not. Generally, if ##L = L(v^2)##, then
$$
\frac{\partial L}{\partial v^i} = L'(v^2) \frac{\partial(v^2)}{dv^i} = 2v^i L'(v^2).
$$
 
Orodruin said:
While the Lagrangian is a function of the speed only, its derivative with respect to the components of ##\vec v## are not. Generally, if ##L = L(v^2)##, then
$$
\frac{\partial L}{\partial v^i} = L'(v^2) \frac{\partial(v^2)}{dv^i} = 2v^i L'(v^2).
$$
Hi. Thanks for the response. I understood that the derivative is a different type of function, but it doesn't convince me that v is constant. Do you have another explanation to help me through this? Or maybe some recommended literature?
 
Ren Figueroa said:
Hi. Thanks for the response. I understood that the derivative is a different type of function, but it doesn't convince me that v is constant. Do you have another explanation to help me through this? Or maybe some recommended literature?
Which part do you not understand? Whatever that derivative is is constant and it holds for all components. If you are worried about the ##L'## factor you can easily show that ##v^2## also is constant and therefore so is ##L'(v^2)##.

Normally, the Lagrangian contains the kinetic term ##mv^2/2##, making ##L' = m/2##.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...

Similar threads

Back
Top