4
$\begingroup$

Studying vector calculus you learn to prove that a particle moving in a gravitational field will, in that field respect that $dU=-dW$. From this you can conclude $U_2+K_2=U_1+K_1$.

This is easy to prove in here but I fail to see how to prove it for, suppose, $n$ charged particles or massive particles.

How can I prove such a thing? Namely, prove that $U_2+K_2=U_1+K_1$ is true if the nature of all the forces in your system are conservative (irrotational). Obviously here $U_j=\sum_i U_i$ and $K_j=\sum_i K_i$, i.e., at snapshot (2) $U_2$ is the sum of all the potential energies in the system, and the same for kinetic energy.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

A force is conservative iff there exists a potential $\Phi$ such that ${\bf F} = -\nabla\Phi$. The Lagrangian for a system of $n$ particles acting under (any number of) conservative forces can be written on the general form

$$L = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{2}m_i{\bf \dot{r_i}}^2 - \Phi({\bf r_1},{\bf r_2},\ldots,{\bf r_n})$$

which leads to the equation of motion

$$m_i{\bf \ddot{r_i}} = -\nabla_{{\bf r_i}}\Phi$$

Multiplying with ${\bf \dot{r_i}}$ and summing over all particles gives us the desired result

$$\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{2}m_i{\bf \dot{r_i}}^2 = -\sum_{i=1}^n{\bf \dot{r_i}}\cdot\nabla_{\bf r_i}\Phi \equiv -\frac{d\Phi}{dt} \implies K+U={\rm const.}$$

where $K=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{2}m_i{\bf \dot{r_i}}^2$ and $U = \Phi$ are the total kinetic and potential energy respectively. This argument covers the case where we have more than one force in play for which we can write $\Phi=\Phi_{\rm force~1}+\Phi_{\rm force~2}+\ldots$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Might be irrelevant but I wanted to translate this proof into tensor notation. At your last line I've run into 3 indices, $m_i r_i'r_i''=\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial r_i} r_i'$ which is not allowed. How can I fix this? Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – DLV
    Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 19:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is there an $\mathbf x$ if it doesn't come up in any of the forces and there is no obvious place to evaluate it? And possibly related is the L a Lagrangian density? $\endgroup$
    – Timaeus
    Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Timaeus That was a typo, thanks for pointing it out. No $\mathcal{L}$ is a Lagrangian, I'm just so used to the symbol $\mathcal{L}$. $\endgroup$
    – Winther
    Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ @David If you assume the particles all have the same mass then you solve this problem. Another possibility is to denote ${\bf p}_i = m_i \dot{{\bf r_i}}$. $\endgroup$
    – Winther
    Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 20:08
0
$\begingroup$

Hint: You wish to prove $\sum_i { \tfrac{1}{2}mv_i^2}- \sum \dfrac{GM_im_j}{r_{ij}}=\text{constant}$, where $r_{ij}=\sqrt{(x_i-x_j)^2+(y_i-y_j)^2+(z_i-z_j)^2}$. This is the case of gravitation(or electrostatic force).

So if you prove $\dfrac{dK}{dt}=-\dfrac{dU}{dt}$, then this implies $K+U=\text{constant}$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.