Analytical mechanics for dummies ?

AI Thread Summary
Concerns about grasping analytical mechanics concepts are common among students, particularly when transitioning from lagrangian mechanics. Recommended texts include Goldstein and Landau, which may be challenging for some. Cambridge Press' text is also suggested, but its suitability depends on individual learning styles. The importance of supplementary resources, like Boas' math methods book, is emphasized to address gaps in understanding. Ultimately, finding the right text that resonates with personal learning preferences is crucial for success in the course.
Lavabug
Messages
858
Reaction score
37
Analytical mechanics "for dummies"?

I'm starting my 2nd year course in analytical mechanics tomorrow and am quite worried that I'll get thrown off very early on, as I didn't fully grasp all of the concepts in lagrangian mechanics in my previous mechanics course (only studied up to lagrangian equations of motion for systems in 3D, along with waves, fluid dynamics/statics and SR).

The recommended texts for the course are Goldstein's (tried it before in my first mech course and it went way over my head) and Landau's (I heard its along the same vein). Cambridge Press' text is also a recommended text, is it any good?

I have Boas' math methods book on the way which I think should help me filling in my gap: calculus of variations, but is there another easier to digest book on analytical mechanics? The topics covered will be lagrange multipliers, rigid body kinetics, rigid body dynamics, small oscillations and canonical equations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lavabug said:
Cambridge Press' text is also a recommended text, is it any good?
Of course it's good otherwise it would not have been published by Cambridge University Press. You should be asking "Is it good for me?" Only you can answer that question. Find a copy, browse through and figure out if you are compatible with it.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
6K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
15K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top