Undergrad Why are there 2s -1 independent integrals of motion?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of independent integrals of motion in mechanics, specifically addressing confusion regarding the number of initial conditions required. It highlights that while 2N initial conditions are typically specified, the distinction between position and velocity is questioned, suggesting that they should be treated separately. The Lagrangian's independence from acceleration is emphasized, leading to a discussion about the implications for equations of motion. The need for time independence in autonomous systems is also examined, particularly regarding the relationship between time and position variables. Overall, the conversation seeks clarity on the mathematical foundations of motion integrals and their implications in mechanics.
yucheng
Messages
232
Reaction score
57
I was reading Mechanics by Landau and Lifshitz and I am confused when it is stated in chapter 2 section 6 that one of the integrals of motion is not independent and it can be considered an additive constant of time. Hence I tried searching it up online.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...f-motion-vs-first-integrals?noredirect=1&lq=1

According to the OP in the link above (first paragraph second sentence), we need to specify 2N initial conditions, one of them is the initial time, the others the initial positions and velocity.

However, shouldn't it be N position and N velocities? Can it be shown to be equivalent? Plus aren't we working with an autonomous system of equations? Is this why we need ##t - t_0## so that it is independent of time?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13832/integrals-of-motion

The answer provided above seems interesting. However, how correct is it? There are several points that I would like to verify...

Questions:
  1. Because the ##\mathcal{L} (q, \dot q)##, the Lagrangian is independent of the acceleration. Hence $$\frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} }{\partial \dot q} - \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial q}$$
    which only involved one time derivative, only introduces terms linear in ##\ddot q##.
  2. According to the author (see a comment below the post as well), $$\ddot q_i =\frac{\text{d}\dot q_i}{\text{d} q_1} \frac{\text{d}q_1}{\text{d}t} =\dot q_1\frac{\text{d}\dot q_i}{\text{d}q_1}$$. How does a total time derivative become a total derivative in ##q_1##? Are we performing a change of variables by inverting ##q_1(t)## to get time as a function of ##q_1## then all coordinates become ##q_i(t(q_1))##?
  3. Are there other proofs of this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
yucheng said:
However, shouldn't it be N position and N velocities? Can it be shown to be equivalent? Plus aren't we working with an autonomous system of equations? Is this why we need t−t0 so that it is independent of time?
Hi. Position and velocity change in time in general so they cannot be integral constants e.g. energy.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
Hi. Position and velocity change in time in general so they cannot be integral constants e.g. energy.
Actually, for that part of the question, I am referring to the initial conditions (which of course determines the ##2s## integrals of motions). I asked it here because it is very relevant! ;)
 
Ooops by the way, ##N=s## (degrees of freedom)
 
yucheng said:
Because the L(q,q˙), the Lagrangian is independent of the acceleration. Hence $$\frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} }{\partial \dot q} - \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial q}$$
which only involved one time derivative, only introduces terms linear in q¨.
Is this correct?
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
536
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
516
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K