Friday, March 27, 2015

forces - Velocity-Dependent Potential and Helmholtz Identities


I'm currently working through the book Heisenberg's Quantum Mechanics (Razavy, 2010), and am reading the chapter on classical mechanics. I'm interested in part of their derivative of a generalized Lorentz force via a velocity-dependent potential.


I understand the generalized force that they derive from a Lagrangian of the form L=12m|v|2V(r,v,t)


Fi=Vxi+ddt(Vvi)


However, in the next (critical) step of the derivation, the author cites a theorem from Helmholtz saying



...according to Helmholtz, for the existence of the Lagrangian, such a generalized force can be at most a linear function of acceleration, and it must satisfy the Helmholtz identities.




The three Helmholtz identities are then listed as:


Fi˙vj=Fj˙vi,


Fivj+Fjvi=ddt(Fi˙vj+Fj˙vi),


FixjFjxi=12ddt(FivjFjvi).


I'm trying to understand where this theorem comes from. Razavy cited a 1887 paper by Helmholtz. I was able to find a PDF online, but it is in German, so I could not verify whether or not it proved the theorem. Additionally, I could not find it in any recent literature. I searched online and in Goldstein's Classical Mechanics.


The only similar concept that I can find is in the Inverse problem for Lagrangian mechanics where we have three equations known as Helmholtz conditions. Are these two concepts one in the same? If so, how should I interpret the function Φ and the matrix gij that appear in the Helmholtz conditions I found online?


If the cited theorem from Razavy does not relate from the inverse Lagrangian problem, could I have some help finding the right direction?



Answer






  1. We are interested whether a given force F = F(r,v,a,t) has a velocity-dependent potential U = U(r,v,t), which by definition means that F ?= ddtUvUr.




  2. If we define the potential part of the action as Sp := dt U, then the condition (3) can be rewritten with the help of a functional derivative as Fi(t) (2)+(3)+(4)= δSpδxi(t),i  {1,,n}, where n is the number of spatial dimensions.




  3. It follows from eqs. (2) & (3) that in the affirmative case the force F must be an affine function in acceleration a.





  4. Since functional derivatives commute δδxi(t)δSpδxj(t) = δδxj(t)δSpδxi(t), we derive the following consistency condition (7) for a force with a velocity dependent potential δFi(t)δxj(t) (5)+(6)= [(i,t)(j,t)]. Eq. (7) is a functional analog of a Maxwell relation, and equivalent to the Helmholtz conditions1



    Fi(t)xj(t)  12ddtFi(t)vj(t) + 14d2dt2Fi(t)aj(t) = +[ij],Fi(t)vj(t)  ddtFi(t)aj(t) = [ij],Fi(t)aj(t) = +[ij].



    [The above form (8) of the Helmholtz conditions can be simplified a bit.]




  5. Sketched systematic proof of the Helmholtz conditions (8). The distribution on the LHS of eq. (7) reads δFi(t)δxj(t) (1)= [Fi(t)xk(t) + Fi(t)vk(t)ddt + Fi(t)ak(t)d2dt2]δxk(t)δxj(t) = [Fi(t)xj(t) + Fi(t)vj(t)ddt + Fi(t)aj(t)d2dt2]δ(tt) = [Fi(t)xj(t)  Fi(t)vj(t)ddt + Fi(t)aj(t)d2dt2]δ(tt). Let us introduce for later convenience new coordinates t± := t±t2{t = t++tt = t+t}ddt± = ddt±ddt. If we introduce a testfunction fCc(R2) with compact support, there are no boundary terms when we integrate by parts: R2dt dt f(t+,t) δFi(t)δxj(t)(9)=    2R2dt+ dt f(t+,t)[Fi(t)xj(t)Fi(t)vj(t)ddt+Fi(t)aj(t)d2dt2]δ(2t)int. by parts=2R2dt+ dt δ(2t)[Fi(t)xj(t)+Fi(t)vj(t)ddt+Fi(t)aj(t)d2dt2]f(t+,t)=    Rdt+ [Fi(t+)xj(t+)+Fi(t+)vj(t+)ddt+Fi(t+)aj(t+)d2dt2]f(t+,0)(10)=   Rdt+ [Fi(t+)xj(t+)+Fi(t+)vj(t+)12(ddt+ddt)+Fi(t+)aj(t+)14(ddt+ddt)2]f(t+,0)int. by parts=Rdt+ [(Fi(t+)xj(t+)12ddt+Fi(t+)vj(t+)+14d2dt+2Fi(t+)aj(t+))+12(ddt+Fi(t+)aj(t+)Fi(t+)vj(t+))ddt+14Fi(t+)aj(t+)d2dt2]f(t+,0).
    Now compare eqs. (7) & (11) to derive the Helmholtz conditions (8). We get 3 conditions because each order of t-derivatives of the testfunction f along the diagonal t=0 are independent. There is an additional minus sign in the middle condition (8) because t is odd under tt exchange.





  6. It is in principle straightforward to use the same proof technique to generalize the Helmholtz conditions (8) to the case where the force (1) and potential (2) depend on higher time-derivatives.




--


1 The other Helmholtz conditions mentioned on the Wikipedia page of the inverse problem for Lagrangian mechanics address a much more difficult problem: Given a set of EOMs, we possibly have to rewrite them before they might have a chance of becoming on the form: functional derivative 0. See also this related Phys.SE post.


No comments:

Post a Comment

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...