6
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to prove Noether's theorem in the context of (point-particle) classical mechanics, however, I'm a bit unsure on a few things.

To keep things as simple as possible I'm only considering the one-dimensional case. As such I'm starting with the full variation of the path $$\begin{align}q(t)\rightarrow q'(t')&=q'(t)+\dot{q}'(t)\delta t=q(t)+\delta q(t)+\dot{q}(t)\delta t\\ \\ \dot{q}(t)\rightarrow \dot{q}'(t')&=\dot{q}'(t)+\ddot{q}'(t)\delta t=\dot{q}(t)+\delta\dot{q}(t)+\ddot{q}(t)\delta t,\end{align}\tag{0.1}$$ to first-order in $\delta t$. This leads to the following variations (to first-order) $$\begin{align}\delta_{_{T}}q&=q'(t')-q(t)=\delta q(t) +\dot{q}(t)\delta t\\ \\ \delta_{_{T}}\dot{q}&=\dot{q}'(t')-\dot{q}(t)=\delta\dot{q}(t)+\ddot{q}(t)\delta t,\end{align}\tag{0.2}$$ where the subscript $T$ is to remind us that we are deforming the time, $t\rightarrow t+\delta t$ as well as the path (a so-called "total" or "full" variation). Now, assuming that this is a symmetry of the classical action $$S[q(t)]=\int dt\,L\left(q(t),\dot{q}(t),t\right)\tag{1}$$ we have that $(1)$ changes by at most a surface term, i.e. $$\delta_{_{T}}S=\int dt\,\frac{d}{dt}G\left(q(t),t\right)\tag{2}$$ Now, the left-hand side of $(2)$ is given by $$\begin{align}\delta_{_{T}}S&=\int\delta_{_{T}}(dt)\,L+\int dt\,\delta_{_{T}}(L)=\int dt\frac{d(\delta t)}{dt}\,L+\int dt\,\left[\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}\delta_{_{T}}q +\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta_{_{T}}\dot{q}+\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}\delta t\right]\\&=\int dt\frac{d(\delta t)}{dt}\,L+\int dt\,\left[\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}\Big(\delta q(t) +\dot{q}(t)\delta t\Big) +\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\Big(\delta\dot{q}(t) +\ddot{q}(t)\delta t\Big)+\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}\delta t\right]\\&=\int dt\,\left[\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\right)\right)\delta q +\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}\dot{q}+\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\ddot{q}+\frac{\partial L}{\partial t}\right)\delta t+\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta q\right)+L\frac{d(\delta t)}{dt}\right]\\&=\int dt\,\left[\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\right)\right)\delta q +\frac{dL}{dt}\delta t+\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta q\right)+L\frac{d(\delta t)}{dt}\right]\\&=\int dt\,\left[\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\right)\right)\delta q +\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta q +L\delta t\right)\right]\end{align}\tag{3}$$ Assuming that $q(t)$ satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation then we have that $$\delta_{_{T}}S=\int dt\,\left[\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta q +L\delta t\right)\right]=\int dt\,\frac{d}{dt}G\left(q(t),t\right)\tag{4}$$ which implies that $$\int dt\,\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta q +L\delta t-G\right)=0\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta q +L\delta t-G=\text{constant}\tag{5}$$ That is, the quantity: $$\Lambda\big(q(t),\dot{q}(t),t\big)=\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}\delta q +L\delta t-G,\tag{6}$$ is a constant of motion.

However, I have some doubts about what I've done so far, and this has lead me to ask the following questions:

$1.$ Have I used the correct total variation of the path in the first place?

$2.$ If I have used the correct variation are the steps in the proof correct?

$3.$ My original motivation to try and replicate a proof of Noether's theorem was to prove energy conservation as a consequence of time translation. It seems that in this case one assumes that the total variation vanishes, i.e. $$\delta_{_{T}}q=q'(t')-q(t)=0\tag{7}$$ (c.f. QMechanic's answer here). Why is this the case? What is the justification?

I realise that this type of question has been asked several times before, but having read the posts that I could find I haven't found that any of them have completely answered my questions. Any help will be much appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I've edited my question to reflect Qmechanic's suggestions and have attempted a more general proof of Noether's theorem. $\endgroup$ – user35305 Aug 17 '17 at 11:06
1
$\begingroup$

OP's post seems to have a dual purpose:

  1. Prove Noether's theorem (NT) in general: Then OP's assumptions that

    • (i) $L$ has no explicit time dependence and
    • (ii) $\delta t$ does not depend on $t$

    should be removed. For an example that violates assumption (ii), see e.g. this Phys.SE post.

    Also note the subtlety that $\delta_T$ and $\frac{d}{dt}$ do not commute, which OP seems to assume in eq. (3).

  2. Prove via NT that a Lagrangian without explicit time dependence leads to energy conservation: In this case it is natural to try the transformation $$q^{\prime}(t^{\prime})~=~q(t)$$ in order to secure a symmetry of the action $$S[t\mapsto q(t)]~=~ S[t^{\prime}\mapsto q^{\prime}(t^{\prime})],$$ which may then be used in NT, cf. this Phys.SE post.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your response. Ideally I would like to prove it in general, but I wasn't quite sure how to do it, so for now I've restricted to no explicit time dependence in the Lagrangian and $\delta t$ time-independent. Also, why is it natural to try $q'(t')=q(t)$ in the case of time translation? Is it because one defines that the coordinates change as $q'(t)=q(t+\delta t)$ under time translation, and then one can simply make a change of variables, $t\rightarrow t-\delta t$ such that $q'(t')=q(t)$? $\endgroup$ – user35305 Aug 16 '17 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ I've updated my OP to reflect your suggested edits. $\endgroup$ – user35305 Aug 17 '17 at 11:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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