Conservation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector in a Central Field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector in a central force field, specifically addressing the implications of angular momentum conservation in elliptical orbits. A participant worked through the derivation of angular momentum and encountered confusion regarding the assumption of radial acceleration, which is typically valid only for circular orbits. They clarified that in elliptical orbits, the angular velocity is not constant, leading to a non-zero angular component of acceleration. The conversation highlights the relationship between radial and angular components of motion, ultimately concluding that the conservation of angular momentum results in specific equations governing the motion. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding acceleration components in polar coordinates for analyzing orbital dynamics.
stephenklein
Messages
6
Reaction score
3
Homework Statement
I'm tasked with showing the LRL vector is conserved in time when the potential is Newtonian. I.e. [itex]U(r) = -\frac{\alpha}{r},[/itex] with [itex]\alpha[/itex] constant.
Relevant Equations
[itex]\vec{L} = \vec{v} \times \vec{M} - \frac{\alpha \vec{r}}{r}, [/itex] where [itex]\vec{L}, \vec{M}[/itex] are the LRL vector and angular momentum, respectively
I actually have worked through the solution just fine by taking the derivative of \vec{L}:

\frac{d \vec{L}}{dt} = \dot{\vec{v}} \times \vec{M} - \alpha \left(\frac{\vec{v}}{r} - \frac{\left(\vec{v} \cdot \vec{r}\right)\vec{r}}{r^{3}}\right)
I permuted the double cross product:
\dot{\vec{v}} \times \vec{M} = \dot{\vec{v}} \times \left(m\vec{r} \times \vec{v}\right) = m\vec{r}\left(\dot{\vec{v}} \cdot \vec{v}\right) - m\vec{v}\left(\dot{\vec{v}} \cdot \vec{r}\right)
Here's where I'm running into trouble. In both Landau and my lecture notes, the next step is apparently to invoke
m\dot{\vec{v}} = \frac{\alpha \vec{r}}{r^{3}},
which comes from the fact that the force is Newtonian. But this implies the acceleration is only in the radial direction, which is only true for motions in circular orbit for which the angular velocity is constant. Obviously, for elliptical orbits, the condition that angular momentum is conserved implies that the angular velocity is at a maximum when r is at a minimum, and vice versa. Therefore, \dot{\phi} is not constant and m\dot{\vec{v}} will have an angular component as well. This can be seen as well from the equations of motion derived from the Lagrangian in polar coordinates.

Am I missing something? The derivation in Landau came under the section for Kepler's problem, so it doesn't seem obvious that I should assume the motion is perfectly circular, with no angular acceleration.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
stephenklein said:
Therefore, \dot{\phi} is not constant and m\dot{\vec{v}} will have an angular component as well.
In polar coordinates, the angular component of acceleration is given by ##a_{\phi} = 2\dot r \dot\phi + r \ddot \phi##. For reference see this document.

So, nonzero ##\ddot \phi## does not necessarily imply nonzero ##a_{\phi}##
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Delta2 and stephenklein
TSny said:
So, a nonzero ##\ddot \phi## does not necessarily imply nonzero ##a_{\phi}##
Wow, I feel like a dummy for not just looking up acceleration components in polar coordinates. That was immensely helpful, thank you.

So to flip the argument around, can we say that because ##m\dot{\vec{v}}## has only a radial component, that ##a_{\phi} = 0##, meaning ##2\dot{r} \dot{\phi} = -r\ddot{\phi}##? And physically, what would that refer to?
 
stephenklein said:
So to flip the argument around, can we say that because ##m\dot{\vec{v}}## has only a radial component, that ##a_{\phi} = 0##, meaning ##2\dot{r} \dot{\phi} = -r\ddot{\phi}##?
Yes
stephenklein said:
And physically, what would that refer to?
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking here.

You could say that it is a consequence of the conservation of angular momentum. The angular momentum is ##\vec M = mr^2\dot\phi \; \hat k## where ##\hat k## is a constant unit vector perpendicular to the plane of the orbit.

Since ##\dot {\vec M} = 0##, you have ##\frac {d }{dt}(mr^2 \dot \phi) = 0##. This implies ##2\dot{r} \dot{\phi} + r\ddot{\phi} = 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes stephenklein, vanhees71 and Delta2
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top