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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top