3

In Landau & Lifshitz's derivation of the Lagrangian of a free particle in a galilean frame of reference one finds the following argument: the equations of motion in two galilean frames must be identical; hence the respective Lagrangians must differ by the total derivative of a function of the generalized position, and time. This is essentially the converse of what the authors point to as justification, namely that adding such a term to the Lagrangian leaves the equations unchanged, and I don't really get why it holds. The only relevant answer I found on stackexchange is Qmechanics' take in Deriving the Lagrangian for a free particle, but i must admit it doesn't quite satisfy me.

Edit: I'm asking why modifications of the Lagrangian that don't change the EL equations are necessarily the addition of a total derivative (and multiplication by a scalar), like L&L claims.

Qmechanic
  • 220,844

1 Answers1

2

L&L's logic is as follows:

  1. L&L demands$^1$ that an (infinitesimal) Galilean transformation should be a quasisymmetry (QS) of the sought-for action functional $S$.

  2. We furthermore demand that

    • the action functional is local, and
    • the position space is contractible.

  3. From this Phys.SE post, we then deduce that an (infinitesimal) Galilean transformation is in fact a QS of the Lagrangian $L$ itself. This means by definition that the change $\Delta L$ in the Lagrangian is a total time derivative, as OP wanted to show.

--

$^1$ This is reasonable since Newtonian mechanics has Galilean symmetry. However, there is potentially a loophole since a symmetry of EOM does not have to be a QS of the action, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. Then the bigger question becomes:

How much can we change the action without affecting the EOM?

That's a good question, which was essentially also asked in this Phys.SE post.

Qmechanic
  • 220,844