DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1907.06354V6 [Quant-Ph] 19 Mar 2021 Changed, Neither a Nonideal Classical Nor Any Quantum [24, 25]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1907.06354V6 [Quant-Ph] 19 Mar 2021 Changed, Neither a Nonideal Classical Nor Any Quantum [24, 25] Conservation laws in quantum noninvasive measurements Stanisław Sołtan,1 Mateusz Frączak,1 Wolfgang Belzig,2, ∗ and Adam Bednorz1 1Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, ul. Pasteura 5, PL02-093 Warsaw, Poland 2Fachbereich Physik, Universität Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany (Dated: March 22, 2021) Conservation principles are essential to describe and quantify dynamical processes in all areas of physics. Classically, a conservation law holds because the description of reality can be considered independent of an observation (measurement). In quantum mechanics, however, invasive observa- tions change quantities drastically, irrespective of any classical conservation law. One may hope to overcome this nonconservation by performing a weak, almost noninvasive measurement. Interest- ingly, we find that the nonconservation is manifest even in weakly measured correlations if some of the other observables do not commute with the conserved quantity. Our observations show that conservation laws in quantum mechanics should be considered in their specific measurement context. We provide experimentally feasible examples to observe the apparent nonconservation of energy and angular momentum. I. INTRODUCTION has been noticed long ago by Wigner, Araki and Yanase (WAY)[4–6], later been discussed in the context of con- sistent histories [7], modular values [8], and the quan- Conserved quantities play an important role in both tum clock [9]. The generation, measurement, and con- classical and quantum mechanics. According to the clas- trol of quantum conserved quantities, in particular, an- sical Noether theorem, the invariance of the dynamics of gular momentum, has become interesting recently, both a system under specific transformations [1] implies the experimentally and theoretically [10–12]. Measurements conservation of certain quantities: translation symme- incompatible with energy lead to thermodynamic cost try in time and space results in energy and momentum [13–15]. conservation, respectively, rotational symmetry in angu- The quantum objectivity is one aspect of the general lar momentum conservation and gauge invariance in a concern of Einstein [16] and Mermin [17] if the (quan- conserved charge. In quantum mechanics, the observ- tum) Moon exists when nobody looks. The randomness ables (in the Heisenberg picture) are time-independent of quantum mechanics does not exclude objective reality when they commute with the Hamiltonian. Furthermore, [18]. Here, we assume that objective observations should some conserved quantities, like the total charge, commute be noninvasive i.e., leaving the probed system unchanged. also with all observables. We shall call them supercon- Unfortunately, unlike the classical case, the fundamental served. Classically all conserved quantities are also super- uncertainty prevents a completely noninvasive measure- conserved. In high energy nomenclature the former are ment in quantum mechanics [19]. Hence, the only re- known as on-shell conserved whereas the latter are called maining possibility seems to be to consider the limit of off-shell conserved [2]. The concept of superconservation weak measurements, which are almost noninvasive. The is closely related to the superselection rule which consti- objectivity based on weak measurements can lead to un- tutes an additional postulate that the set of observables expected results such as weak values [20] or the violation is restricted to those commuting with the superconserved of the Leggett-Garg inequality [21–23]. Unlike the stan- operators [3]. dard projection, which is highly invasive, the extraction Conservation principles become less obvious when one of objective values from weak measurements requires a tries to verify them experimentally. While an ideal clas- special protocol involving the subtraction of a large de- sical measurement will keep the relevant quantities un- tection noise. Therefore, such objectivity is debatable arXiv:1907.06354v6 [quant-ph] 19 Mar 2021 changed, neither a nonideal classical nor any quantum [24, 25]. In our opinion, weak quantum measurements are measurement will necessarily reflect the conservation ex- the closest counterparts of classical measurements [26], actly. Even the smallest interaction between the system so they are prime candidates to define objective reality and the measuring device (detector) may involve a trans- and, consequently, conservation principles are expected fer of the conserved quantity. The system might become to hold in systems with an appropriate invariance. a coherent superposition of states with different values In this paper, we will show that for quantum mea- of a conserved quantity (e.g. energy), or in the case of surements in the weak limit superconservation holds but a superconserved quantity an incoherent mixture (e.g. quantities such as energy, momentum, and angular mo- charge). The problem of proper modeling of the mea- mentum apparently violate conservation even if an ap- surement of quantities incompatible with conserved ones propriate symmetry results in classical conservation law. The violation of conservation appears in third-order time correlations as we illustrate in simple model systems (Fig. 1). The violation is caused by (at least two) other ∗Electronic address: [email protected] observables that are not commuting with the conserved 2 commuting) projections onto the eigenspace of the value time q (i.e. Q^j qi = qj qi). Now, the superselection postulate t' 1 says that the state of the system ρ^ is always an incoherent 1 t 1 P ^ ^ ^ t1 t'1 mixture q Pqρ^Pq, if Q is superconserved. Then the pro- 2 jective measurement of A^ will not alter the q−eigenspace ^ P ^ ^ t as there exists a decomposition A = aPqa with Pqa 2 t q;a 3 3 being the projection onto the joint eigenspace of Q^ and A^ with respective eigenvalues q and a. For instance, if the initial state is already a q−eigenstate then it will remain Δq Δq g→0 such an eigenstate after the projection. For general mea- SYSTEM DETECTOR surements, positive operator-valued measures (POVM), represented by Kraus operators K^c (the index c can rep- FIG. 1: (top) Three weak measurements. The detectors are resent an eigenvalue of A^, Q^ or both but in general it can P y initially independent and couple instantly to the system at t1 be arbitrary) such that K^ K^c = 1^, the state ρ^ will 0 c c (or t1), t2 and t3. The conserved quantity is measured (empty ^ ^ y 0 collapse to ρ^c = Kcρ^Kc , normalized by the probability circles) either at time t1 < t2 or t1 > t2. The outcomes 1 and 0 Tr^ρc. In principle K^c can act within q-eigenspaces, i.e. 1 inferred from the three-point correlator might differ, even ^ ^ ^ ^ for a conserved quantity in the quantum case. (bottom) Fail- c = qa and Kqa = PqKaPq. In the most general case, the ure of conservation in the weak measurement. The transfer superconserving Kraus operator reads ∆q of the conserved quantity q between the system and de- ^ ^ ^ ^ tector does not scale with the measurement strength g. Kq0aq = Pq0 KaPq: (1) It means that the superconserved value can change but the system remains an incoherent mixture of q- one. We write down an operational criterion to witness eigenstates. This applies e.g. to a charge measurement the violation of a conservation principle and discuss when in a quantum dot (which is superconserved), where the it is satisfied. Then we propose a feasible experiment charge can leak out into an incoherent bath. The (nor- probing position and magnetic moment of a charge in a mally) conserved quantities do not impose any additional circular trap. Last, considering an imperfect conserva- postulates so the state can be a coherent superposition of tion or measurement of the quantity we develop then a the states of different values of energy, angular momen- Leggett-Garg-type test of objective realism. tum, etc. A projective measurement of A^ which does not commute with Q is enough to turn a q-eigenstate into a superposition. Now, if we try to postulate a II. SUPERCONSERVATION POVM with superconserving Kraus operators then the actually measured operator involves a linear combina- ^ P ^ ^ y ^ ^ ^ ^ The physical Hermitian quantity Q, defined within tion of qq0 PqKaPq0 KaPq so it must commute with Q the system is conserved when [H;^ Q^] = 0 for the sys- which would become superconserved. This is a modern tem’s Hamiltonian H^ . The Q^ can be superconserved if version of the WAY theorem [4–6], that the measurement ^ P ^ y ^ ^ there exists a set A of allowed Hermitian observables of A = a aKaKa not commuting with Q, cannot con- such [A;^ Q^] = 0 for every A^ 2 A. In principle, one sist of only K^q0aq defined above with q−eigenspaces of could make every conserved quantity superconserved by Q^. Such a formulation is simpler than the original WAY a proper choice of the set A. However, for instance, for a theorem, as is does not need the dicussion of an auxil- component of angular momentum we would have to ex- iary detector. On the other hand both approaches are clude position and momentum or even other components equivalent due to the Naimark theorem [27]. of angular momentum. Instead, we will distinguish quan- The unavoidability of coherent superpositions of only tities that are conserved but not superconserved by al- conserved values is the key problem considered here. lowing measurement of observables not commuting with them. An example of a superconserved quantity is the total electric charge, while the set of observables and pos- III. WEAK MEASUREMENTS AND sible initial state density matrices is restricted to those OBJECTIVE REALISM that do not change the charge. This is also known as superselection rule. Whether this rule is an axiom or a Strong projections are highly invasive, i.e. ρ^ ! practical assumption, depending in the considered Hamil- P ^ ^ P P ρ^P changes the state ρ very much. On the other tonian, is a matter of debate [3], because one can in hand, unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics does principle imagine dynamics without e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Noether: the More Things Change, the More Stay the Same
    Noether: The More Things Change, the More Stay the Same Grzegorz G luch∗ R¨udigerUrbanke EPFL EPFL Abstract Symmetries have proven to be important ingredients in the analysis of neural networks. So far their use has mostly been implicit or seemingly coincidental. We undertake a systematic study of the role that symmetry plays. In particular, we clarify how symmetry interacts with the learning algorithm. The key ingredient in our study is played by Noether's celebrated theorem which, informally speaking, states that symmetry leads to conserved quantities (e.g., conservation of energy or conservation of momentum). In the realm of neural networks under gradient descent, model symmetries imply restrictions on the gradient path. E.g., we show that symmetry of activation functions leads to boundedness of weight matrices, for the specific case of linear activations it leads to balance equations of consecutive layers, data augmentation leads to gradient paths that have \momentum"-type restrictions, and time symmetry leads to a version of the Neural Tangent Kernel. Symmetry alone does not specify the optimization path, but the more symmetries are contained in the model the more restrictions are imposed on the path. Since symmetry also implies over-parametrization, this in effect implies that some part of this over-parametrization is cancelled out by the existence of the conserved quantities. Symmetry can therefore be thought of as one further important tool in understanding the performance of neural networks under gradient descent. 1 Introduction There is a large body of work dedicated to understanding what makes neural networks (NNs) perform so well under versions of gradient descent (GD).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Total Momentum TM1
    L3:1 Conservation of total momentum TM1 We will here prove that conservation of total momentum is a consequence Taylor: 268-269 of translational invariance. Consider N particles with positions given by . If we translate the whole system with some distance we get The potential energy must be una ected by the translation. (We move the "whole world", no relative position change.) Also, clearly all velocities are independent of the translation Let's consider to be in the x-direction, then Using Lagrange's equation, we can rewrite each derivative as I.e., total momentum is conserved! (Clearly there is nothing special about the x-direction.) L3:2 Generalized coordinates, velocities, momenta and forces Gen:1 Taylor: 241-242 With we have i.e., di erentiating w.r.t. gives us the momentum in -direction. generalized velocity In analogy we de✁ ne the generalized momentum and we say that and are conjugated variables. Note: Def. of gen. force We also de✁ ne the generalized force from Taylor 7.15 di ers from def in HUB I.9.17. such that generalized rate of change of force generalized momentum Note: (generalized coordinate) need not have dimension length (generalized velocity) velocity momentum (generalized momentum) (generalized force) force Example: For a system which rotates around the z-axis we have for V=0 s.t. The angular momentum is thus conjugated variable to length dimensionless length/time 1/time mass*length/time mass*(length)^2/time (torque) energy Cyclic coordinates = ignorable coordinates and Noether's theorem L3:3 Cyclic:1 We have de ned the generalized momentum Taylor: From EL we have 266-267 i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Status of Conservation Laws in Physics: Implications for Semiclassical Gravity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Philsci-Archive On the Status of Conservation Laws in Physics: Implications for Semiclassical Gravity Tim Maudlin Department of Philosophy, New York University, New York, USA. Elias Okon Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico. Daniel Sudarsky Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico. We start by surveying the history of the idea of a fundamental conservation law and briefly examine the role conservation laws play in different classical contexts. In such contexts we find conservation laws to be useful, but often not essential. Next we consider the quantum setting, where the conceptual problems of the standard formalism obstruct a rigorous analysis of the issue. We then analyze the fate of energy conservation within the various viable paths to address such conceptual problems; in all cases we find no satisfactory way to define a (useful) notion of energy that is generically conserved. Finally, we focus on the implications of this for the semiclassical gravity program and conclude that Einstein’s equations cannot be said to always hold. 1 Introduction It is often the case that a principle considered essential at some stage in the development of physics continues to be perceived as such well after the philosophical reasons for giving it a sacred character are removed from our best understanding of the physical world. This seems to be the case in regard to the status of certain conservation laws, and in particular about conservation of energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Many Body Physics Conservation of Momentum
    Many Body Physics So far we've been considering single particles which are subject to external forces - for example, a projectile subject to air resistance, or a block attached to a spring. Of course, we know that more accurately, forces are simply a result of different particles interacting with each other - molecules in the air scatter off of our projectile, and tension in a spring is a result of the interactions between its constituent atoms. In general, we can imagine a collection of N particles, subject to a variety of interactions amongst themselves. Newton's second law then tells us that N X mi¨ri = Fji; (1) j=1 th where mi and ¨ri are the mass and acceleration of the i particle, and Fji is the force that particle j exerts on particle i. We now want to understand what type of behaviour such a system of particles can exhibit. Clearly, our above expression is very general, and describes an enormous variety of different physical systems. However, for the systems we are typically concerned with, there are a variety of simplifications we can make, which will actually let us say quite a bit about the motion of the system, before we specify any particular forces. Conservation of Momentum First, we will assume that our forces obey Newton's third law, Fji = −Fij; (2) which, as we remember, says that particles must exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Notice that this includes the special case Fii = −Fii ) Fii = 0; (3) indicating that a particle cannot exert a force on itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserved Quantities and the Moment Map
    Representation theory and quantum mechanics tutorial Conserved quantities and the moment map Justin Campbell July 13, 2017 1 The free particle and Hamilton's equation 1.1 Consider the classical mechanical problem of a particle of mass m travelling through space, which we 3 model by R with coordinates labelled q1; q2; q3. The state of such a particle is completely determined by its position and velocity. These quantities can be represented by two 3-vectors, i.e. the phase space of the particle is R6. Rather than the trajectory of the particle taking place in the configuration space R3 which records only position, we think of it as rather in the phase space R6 whose points are states of the particle. For various reasons we typically use momentum p than velocity v, although the two are of course related by the equation p = mv. Suppose that the particle experiences a force dependent on its position, expressible as a gradient vector field F = −∇V = − @V ; − @V ; − @V ; @q1 @q2 @q3 where V : R3 ! R is a smooth function called the potential. The total energy of the particle is then given by jpj2 H(q; p) = + V (q); 2m where p 2 R3 is the momentum of the particle. Here the first term represents kinetic energy and the second \potential energy." The function H : R6 ! R which attaches to a state its energy is called the Hamiltonian of the system. According to Hamiltonian mechanics, the time evolution of such a system is given by Hamilton's equations dq @H dp @H i = and i = − : (1.1.1) dt @pi dt @qi If the potential vanishes, so that H is just the kinetic energy, we say that the particle is free.
    [Show full text]
  • Noether's Theorem and Symmetry
    Noether’s Theorem and Symmetry Edited by P.G.L. Leach and Andronikos Paliathanasis Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Symmetry www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry Noether’s Theorem and Symmetry Noether’s Theorem and Symmetry Special Issue Editors P.G.L. Leach Andronikos Paliathanasis MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editors P.G.L. Leach Andronikos Paliathanasis University of Kwazulu Natal & Durban University of Technology Durban University of Technology Republic of South Arica Cyprus Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Symmetry (ISSN 2073-8994) from 2018 to 2019 (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry/ special issues/Noethers Theorem Symmetry). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Article Number, Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03928-234-0 (Pbk) ISBN 978-3-03928-235-7 (PDF) Cover image courtesy of Andronikos Paliathanasis. c 2020 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Derivation of Conserved Quantities in Classical Mechanics 2
    On the Derivation of Conserved Quantities in Classical Mechanics Paulus C. Tjiang and Sylvia H. Sutanto Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Universitas Katolik Parahyangan, Bandung 40141 - INDONESIA E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. Using a theorem of partial differential equations, we present a general way of deriving the conserved quantities associated with a given classical point mechanical system, denoted by its Hamiltonian. Some simple examples are given to demonstrate the validity of the formulation. PACS numbers: 02.60.Lj, 45.20.Jj 1. Introduction. It has been well-known for many years of the history of physics that symmetry principles and conservation laws play a crucial role in understanding physical phenomena [1, 2, 3]. Many physical problems can be solved significantly easier by taking into account symmetry consideration, and most importantly, one can gain deep insight of the nature of the phenomena. Many fields of study in modern physics developed rapidly through the understanding of symmetry principles, for instance, the gauge symmetries in quantum field theory and elementary particle physics [4, 5, 6]. The existence of symmetries in a physical system means that there exists one or more transformations that leave the physical system unaltered. Since physical systems can be completely described by their Lagrangians / Hamiltonians, it is therefore natural to expect the symmetry transformations to be canonical ones. The number of symmetry transformations that can be generated from the system depends on the number of arXiv:physics/0302056v3 [physics.class-ph] 16 Mar 2004 conserved quantities of the associated system.
    [Show full text]
  • On Symmetry and Conserved Quantities in Classical Mechanics
    On Symmetry and Conserved Quantities in Classical Mechanics J. Butter¯eld1 All Souls College Oxford OX1 4AL Tuesday 12 July 2005; for a Festschrift for Je®rey Bub, ed. W. Demopoulos and I. Pitowsky, Kluwer: University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science.2 Abstract This paper expounds the relations between continuous symmetries and con- served quantities, i.e. Noether's \¯rst theorem", in both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian frameworks for classical mechanics. This illustrates one of mechan- ics' grand themes: exploiting a symmetry so as to reduce the number of variables needed to treat a problem. I emphasise that, for both frameworks, the theorem is underpinned by the idea of cyclic coordinates; and that the Hamiltonian theorem is more powerful. The Lagrangian theorem's main \ingredient", apart from cyclic coordinates, is the recti¯cation of vector ¯elds a®orded by the local existence and uniqueness of solutions to ordinary di®erential equations. For the Hamiltonian theorem, the main extra ingredients are the asymmetry of the Poisson bracket, and the fact that a vector ¯eld generates canonical transformations i® it is Hamiltonian. 1email: [email protected]; jeremy.butter¯[email protected] 2It is a pleasure to dedicate this paper to Je® Bub, who has made such profound contributions to the philosophy of quantum theory. Though the paper is about classical, not quantum, mechanics, I hope that with his love of geometry, he enjoys symplectic forms as much as inner products! Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Lagrangian mechanics 4 2.1 Lagrange's equations . 4 2.2 Geometrical perspective .
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous Symmetries and Conservation Laws. Noether's
    Nature always creates the best of all options. Aristoteles (384 BC–322 BC) 8 Continuous Symmetries and Conservation Laws. Noether’s Theorem In many physical systems, the action is invariant under some continuous set of transformations. In such systems, there exist local and global conservation laws analogous to current and charge conservation in electrodynamics. The analogs of the charges can be used to generate the symmetry transformation, from which they were derived, with the help of Poisson brackets, or after quantization, with the help of commutators. 8.1 Point Mechanics Consider a simple mechanical system with a generic action tb A = dt L(q(t), q˙(t), t). (8.1) Zta 8.1.1 Continuous Symmetries and Conservation Law Suppose A is invariant under a continuous set of transformations of the dynamical variables: q(t) → q′(t)= f(q(t), q˙(t)), (8.2) where f(q(t), q˙(t)) is some functional of q(t). Such transformations are called sym- metry transformations. Thereby it is important that the equations of motion are not used when establishing the invariance of the action under (8.2). If the action is subjected successively to two symmetry transformations, the re- sult is again a symmetry transformation. Thus, symmetry transformations form a group called the symmetry group of the system. For infinitesimal symmetry trans- formations (8.2), the difference ′ δsq(t) ≡ q (t) − q(t) (8.3) will be called a symmetry variation. It has the general form δsq(t)= ǫ∆(q(t), q˙(t), t). (8.4) 619 620 8 Continuous Symmetries and Conservation Laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Law of Momentum
    1/24/2017 Lecture 2: Basic Conservation Laws Conservation Law of Momentum Newton’s 2nd Law of Momentum = absolute velocity viewed in an inertial system = rate of change of Ua following the motion in an inertial system • Conservation of Momentum • The conservation law for momentum (Newton’s second law of • Conservation of Mass motion) relates the rate of change of the absolute momentum • Conservation of Energy following the motion in an inertial reference frame to the sum of the forces acting on the fluid. • Scaling Analysis ESS228 ESS228 Prof. Jin-Yi Yu Prof. Jin-Yi Yu Apply the Law to a Rotating Coordinate Total Derivative in a Rotating Coordinate • For most applications in meteorology it is desirable to refer the (in an inertial coordinate) motion to a reference frame rotating with the earth. (in a coordinate with an angular velocity Ω) • Transformation of the momentum equation to a rotating coordinate system requires a relationship between the total derivative of a vector in an inertial reference frame and the corresponding total derivative in a rotating system. ? Change of vector A in Change of the rotating coordinate the rotating coordinate view from the inertial coordinate The acceleration following the The acceleration following the motion in an inertial coordinate motion in a rotating coordinate ESS228 ESS228 Prof. Jin-Yi Yu Prof. Jin-Yi Yu 1 1/24/2017 Newton’s 2nd Law in a Rotating Frame Momentum Conservation in a Rotating Frame on an inertial coordinate = pressure gradient force + true gravity + viscous force = * covert acceleration from an inertial to a rotating frames using absolute velocity of an object on the rotating Because earth is equal to its velocity relative to the earth plus the velocity due to the rotation of the earth * = [Here ] on a rotating coordinate ESS228 Here, g = apparent gravity = ( g* + Ω2R ) ESS228 Coriolis force Centrifugal force Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • 10.Linear Momentum Conservation Thurs 3.25.10.Nb
    10. Conservation of Linear Momentum Introduction: The last module showed there is a different way of looking at Newton's Laws of Motion involving conservation of energy. But energy is not the only conserved quantity in physics and another conserved quantity is linear momentum. There actually two kinds of momentum: one associated linear motion and one associated with angular motion (called angular momentum). Angular momentum obeys a separate conservation law and this will be discussed in a later module. ¢ | £ 2 10.Linear Momentum Conservation Thurs 3.25.10.nb Definition of Linear Momentum: Suppose a mass M has velocity V, then we say it has Kinetic Energy KE = 1 M V2. Additionally we 2 say the mass has linear momentum P=MV and shortly we will see why this definition is important. 1. First notice that linear momentum P is a vector quantity since it is proportional to the velocity V . (This is in contrast with Kinetic Energy which is a scalar quantity.) 2. Consider the momenta P of two objects having different masses M > m but the same velocity V: The object with the greater mass M has more momentum. So momentum is different from velocity. 3. Units of Momentum: kgäm/sec ¢ | £ 10.Linear Momentum Conservation Thurs 3.25.10.nb 3 Introduction of Momentum into Physics Suppose a force F acts for a time Dt on a mass M as pictured below. Initial Position Final Position M F 4 10.Linear Momentum Conservation Thurs 3.25.10.nb Combine 1. Newton's 2nd Law: F = m a plus V -V 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lagrangian Method Copyright 2007 by David Morin, [email protected] (Draft Version)
    Chapter 6 The Lagrangian Method Copyright 2007 by David Morin, [email protected] (draft version) In this chapter, we're going to learn about a whole new way of looking at things. Consider the system of a mass on the end of a spring. We can analyze this, of course, by using F = ma to write down mxÄ = ¡kx. The solutions to this equation are sinusoidal functions, as we well know. We can, however, ¯gure things out by using another method which doesn't explicitly use F = ma. In many (in fact, probably most) physical situations, this new method is far superior to using F = ma. You will soon discover this for yourself when you tackle the problems and exercises for this chapter. We will present our new method by ¯rst stating its rules (without any justi¯cation) and showing that they somehow end up magically giving the correct answer. We will then give the method proper justi¯cation. 6.1 The Euler-Lagrange equations Here is the procedure. Consider the following seemingly silly combination of the kinetic and potential energies (T and V , respectively), L ´ T ¡ V: (6.1) This is called the Lagrangian. Yes, there is a minus sign in the de¯nition (a plus sign would simply give the total energy). In the problem of a mass on the end of a spring, T = mx_ 2=2 and V = kx2=2, so we have 1 1 L = mx_ 2 ¡ kx2: (6.2) 2 2 Now write µ ¶ d @L @L = : (6.3) dt @x_ @x Don't worry, we'll show you in Section 6.2 where this comes from.
    [Show full text]