Why does Isotropy of L imply L(v^2)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john8197
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the Lagrangian in Landau's Mechanics, specifically its dependence on velocity. It emphasizes that the Lagrangian must be a scalar, which necessitates it being a function of the magnitude of the velocity vector rather than its direction. The mention of the Lagrangian being independent of direction highlights the isotropic nature of space. While some participants criticize the book, others defend its clarity and effectiveness in conveying mechanical concepts. Overall, the text underscores the importance of understanding how vectors relate to scalars in the context of Lagrangian mechanics.
john8197
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm reading the first edition of Mechanics by Landau et al, published in 1960. Just before equation 3.1 on page 5 it says exactly this:

"Since space is isotropic, the Lagrangian must also be independent of the direction of v, and is therefore a function only of it's magnitude, i.e. of v(bold)^2 = v(italic)^2:

L = L(v(italic)^2) (3.1)"

This seems very cryptic to me since the magnitude is sqrt(v(bold)^2) =
v(italic).
Could someone fill in the missing details for me please?

Funky
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't read that book!
 
Clearly the lagrangian has to depend on the velocity somehow. Then you notice that the Lagrangian is a scalar, yet the velocity is a vector. There is only one way of converting a vector into a scalar that will be the same in all coordinate systems (which it has to be by definition): take its magnitude.

If you want to be nitpicky, then you could say v->a|v|+b, where a and b are constants, but generalization doesn't matter (you should check this).
 
salsero said:
Don't read that book!

Why not? I've been using it for a couple of weeks now, and it's one of the nicest books on Mechanics I've ever read. It's brief, but to the point, and appeals the physical intuition without blurring the mathematical side of the story.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top