4
$\begingroup$

From Landau, Lifshitz Mechanics p.127

$$ \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mathbf{#1}} L'=\frac{1}{2}m(\vec{v}'^2+\vec{v'}\cdot\vec{V}+\vec{V}^2)-U $$

He states that "$\vec{V}^2(t)$ can be written as the total derivative with respect to $t$ of some other function.". I understood that but the point that I could not understand is why we can't write the terms $\vec{v'}\cdot\vec{V}$ and $\vec{v}'^2$ as the total derivative with respect to $t$ of some other function?

$\vec{v}'$ is the velocity of particle measured in non-inertial frame.

$\vec{V}$ is translational velocity of non-inertial frame with respect to inertial frame.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

The main point is that:

  1. On one hand, ${\bf r}^{\prime}(t)$ is an dynamical active variable of the system. Its time evolution is determined by the equations of motion of the system, i.e. Newton's 2nd law. Here ${\bf v}^{\prime}:=\dot{\bf r}^{\prime}$.

  2. On the other hand, ${\bf R}(t)$ is a passive (background) variable with pre-defined time-dependence. Here ${\bf V}:=\dot{\bf R}$.

We could in principle define e.g.

$$\tag{1} F_1~:=~\frac{m}{2}\int_0^t \! dt^{\prime}~ \dot{\bf r}^{\prime}(t^{\prime})^2,\qquad \dot{F}_1~=~\frac{m}{2}\dot{\bf r}^{\prime 2}, $$

$$\tag{2} F_2~:=~\frac{m}{2}\int_0^t\! dt^{\prime}~ \dot{\bf r}^{\prime}(t^{\prime})\cdot \dot{\bf R}(t^{\prime}),\qquad \dot{F}_2~=~\frac{m}{2}\dot{\bf r}^{\prime}\cdot\dot{\bf R} ,$$

$$\tag{3} F_3~:=~\frac{m}{2}\int_0^t \! dt^{\prime}~ \dot{\bf R}(t^{\prime})^2,\qquad \dot{F}_3~=~\frac{m}{2}\dot{\bf R}^2. $$

The problem with e.g. the definition (1) is that $F_1$ would be a non-local quantity. It would depend on the dynamical active variable ${\bf r}(t^{\prime})$ in the past $t'<t$. See also this Phys.SE post.

On the other hand, there is no problem with locality in the definition (3) of $F_3$ because the passive variable ${\bf R}(t)$ is pre-defined for all times $t$. In other words, $F_3$ is just another passive background variable.

References:

  1. L.D. Landau & E.M. Lifshitz, Mechanics, vol. 1, (1976), p. 127.
$\endgroup$

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.