I was wondering why physical systems "like" to go to the minimum of potential energy and I found this question, that tries to justify the minumum total potential energy principle. I was also reading some notes on classical mechanics that treat oscillations in the following way:
Suppose we have a system with n generalised coordinates qi. The Lagrangian of the system is
L= 12gij(q)˙qi˙qj−V(q).
I know that the Euler-Lagrange equation yields a system of second order differential equations in which it can be seen that there is a conservative field that can be expressed in terms of its potential. This field would "point" towards the minumum of potential energy.
In the notes they say that gij(q) is a metric, and a symmetric array which may depend upon the configuration coordinates. I know that this gij(q) should be related to the masses of the particles in the system, but I sincerely don't know why the word "metric" is used there. Is there any other name for that term gij(q)?
Also, if we take the Taylor series expansion about xi:=qi−qi0, where
∂V∂qi(q0)=0,
we get
L≈12gij(q0)˙qi˙qj−12∂2V∂qi∂qj(q0)xixj.
From here it is clear what I said about the Euler Lagrange equations showing the thing about the field, so this would be a justification for the minimum total potential energy principle, wouldn't it?
Answer
The kinetic term of the Lagrangian is proportional to gijvivj
This association works the other way around, namely given a metric on a manifold, this can be used to define a kinetic term for a Lagrangian (cf. Jacobi-Maupertuis principle).
As for why physical systems tend to the minimum of the energy, this is a fact that gets deduced from the experience and therefore assumed as a postulate for Nature. Granted this, the impossibility of having perpetual motion, free energy and other unobserved phenomena, leads to the existence of a lowest energy state (both on a classical and quantum level).
No comments:
Post a Comment