From Goldstein's Classical Mechanics (2nd ed.), problem 38 of chapter 9 basically says the following:
It's been shown that the Poisson bracket of two constants of the motion is also a constant of the motion (by the Jacobi identity). Applied the angular momentum of a particle/system, this says that if the components of angular momentum Lx and Ly are conserved, Lz is also conserved because
{Lx,Ly}=Lz
This seems to imply that any system confined to move in a plane automatically has its angular momentum Lz conserved, since Lx and Ly are identically zero. Immediately we can think of systems confined to a plane where Lz isn't conserved (e.g. angular momentum of spring on a watch or that of a plane disk rolling down an incline). What objections can be made to this implication? Does the theorem above require any restrictions?
I can't find any solutions to this online, but here's my guess:
I think the problem is that this theorem relies on Lx and Ly being constants of the motion with respect to a system (certain phase-space with underlying hamiltonian) described by Hamilton's principle, and the cited examples where angular momentum wasn't conserved required constraint equations which would alter the form of the Lagrangian formalism (which the Hamiltonian formalism is based on). The theorem could then be formulated as follows: the Poisson bracket of two constants of the motion, with respect to a system described by the typical Hamilton's principle, is also a constant of the motion (by the Jacobi identity).
What do you think? Is my guess on the right track? If so, how could it be refined? If not, why is my guess invalid?
Answer
When you say that Lx and Ly vanish for a point confined to move in the plane z=0, you mean that the the solution →x=→x(t), →p=→p(t) describes a curve in the given plane with tangent vector parallel to that plane. So that, exactly along that curve, Lx(→x(t),→p(t))=Ly(→x(t),→p(t))=0∀t∈R
This fact is general. For instance F(x,y)=x−y2 vanishes if evaluated on the curve x=t2, y=t: F(x(t),y(t))=t2−t2=0∀t∈R.
Also the general statement that if Lx and Ly are conserved then Lz is does not follow so straightforwardly from {Lx,Ly}=Lz
No comments:
Post a Comment