Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/553004000879345664
added 2 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Qmechanic ♦
Qmechanic ♦
  • 212.7k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k

I'm almost embarrased to ask this question because I thought I was by now very confident with classical mechanics.

Someone has stated that given a mechanical system with a Lagrangian $L$ s.t. $\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}=0$ where the kinetic energy $T$ is NOT homogeneous quadratic in the generalised velocities, one cannot infer that the total energy $E=T+V$ is NOT conserved.

However, I think this is already enough to show that $\dot{E} \neq 0$.

Let's assume that $L$ looks as follows: $L = \frac{1}{2}(\dot{q}^2 + 2 \dot{q}f(q))-V(q)$.

Then, after plugging in the equation of motion $\ddot{q} = -V^{\prime}$, I obtain \begin{equation} \dot{E} = \dot{q} [\dot{q}f^{\prime}(q) - V^{\prime}(q)f(q)]. \end{equation}

I can't see how one can make this vanish.

To me it is clear that scleronomic constrains imply that $T$ is homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$. Then, one has of course energy conservation. But, does $T$ being not homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$ also imply that there is a rheonomic constraint? (Because then it is also physically clear, why E$E$ is not conserved.)

I'd be grateful for answers!

I'm almost embarrased to ask this question because I thought I was by now very confident with classical mechanics.

Someone has stated that given a mechanical system with a Lagrangian $L$ s.t. $\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}=0$ where the kinetic energy $T$ is NOT homogeneous quadratic in the generalised velocities, one cannot infer that the total energy $E=T+V$ is NOT conserved.

However, I think this is already enough to show that $\dot{E} \neq 0$.

Let's assume that $L$ looks as follows: $L = \frac{1}{2}(\dot{q}^2 + 2 \dot{q}f(q))-V(q)$.

Then, after plugging in the equation of motion $\ddot{q} = -V^{\prime}$, I obtain \begin{equation} \dot{E} = \dot{q} [\dot{q}f^{\prime}(q) - V^{\prime}(q)f(q)]. \end{equation}

I can't see how one can make this vanish.

To me it is clear that scleronomic constrains imply that $T$ is homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$. Then, one has of course energy conservation. But, does $T$ being not homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$ also imply that there is a rheonomic constraint? (Because then it is also physically clear, why E is not conserved.)

I'd be grateful for answers!

I'm almost embarrased to ask this question because I thought I was by now very confident with classical mechanics.

Someone has stated that given a mechanical system with a Lagrangian $L$ s.t. $\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}=0$ where the kinetic energy $T$ is NOT homogeneous quadratic in the generalised velocities, one cannot infer that the total energy $E=T+V$ is NOT conserved.

However, I think this is already enough to show that $\dot{E} \neq 0$.

Let's assume that $L$ looks as follows: $L = \frac{1}{2}(\dot{q}^2 + 2 \dot{q}f(q))-V(q)$.

Then, after plugging in the equation of motion $\ddot{q} = -V^{\prime}$, I obtain \begin{equation} \dot{E} = \dot{q} [\dot{q}f^{\prime}(q) - V^{\prime}(q)f(q)]. \end{equation}

I can't see how one can make this vanish.

To me it is clear that scleronomic constrains imply that $T$ is homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$. Then, one has of course energy conservation. But, does $T$ being not homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$ also imply that there is a rheonomic constraint? (Because then it is also physically clear, why $E$ is not conserved.)

I'd be grateful for answers!

Source Link
psm
psm
  • 909
  • 4
  • 9

Sufficient conditions for the energy to be not conserved?

I'm almost embarrased to ask this question because I thought I was by now very confident with classical mechanics.

Someone has stated that given a mechanical system with a Lagrangian $L$ s.t. $\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}=0$ where the kinetic energy $T$ is NOT homogeneous quadratic in the generalised velocities, one cannot infer that the total energy $E=T+V$ is NOT conserved.

However, I think this is already enough to show that $\dot{E} \neq 0$.

Let's assume that $L$ looks as follows: $L = \frac{1}{2}(\dot{q}^2 + 2 \dot{q}f(q))-V(q)$.

Then, after plugging in the equation of motion $\ddot{q} = -V^{\prime}$, I obtain \begin{equation} \dot{E} = \dot{q} [\dot{q}f^{\prime}(q) - V^{\prime}(q)f(q)]. \end{equation}

I can't see how one can make this vanish.

To me it is clear that scleronomic constrains imply that $T$ is homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$. Then, one has of course energy conservation. But, does $T$ being not homogeneous quadratic in $\dot{q}$ also imply that there is a rheonomic constraint? (Because then it is also physically clear, why E is not conserved.)

I'd be grateful for answers!