Can PCA Be Used to Derive Equations of Motion?

AI Thread Summary
PCA can be applied to estimate constants in equations like F = kx, but it is not the typical method; linear regression is usually preferred for such tasks. PCA involves analyzing the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix to derive relationships between variables. The equation F = kx is not classified as an equation of motion, which may lead to confusion in its application. Clarifying the specific problem or goal can help determine the most appropriate analytical approach. Understanding the context and methodology is crucial for accurate modeling in physics.
touqra
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
Was wondering if PCA can be used to find equation of motions, like F = kx.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And PCA means what exactly?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Keith_McClary
Dr.D said:
And PCA means what exactly?
Principal Component Analysis
 
touqra said:
Was wondering if PCA can be used to find equation of motions, like F = kx.
You mean to estimate the constant k for a spring? You usually use linear regression for that. But you can apply PCA and then compute k as the ratio of the components of the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes touqra
F=kx is not an equation of motion. What is your actual problem or goal?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

A How Does Maximum Likelihood Estimate Factor Loadings in PCA Path Models?
Replies
0
Views
975
I Differences between the PCA function and Karhunen-Loève expansion
Replies
1
Views
2K
A Apliying PCA to two correlated stochastic processes
Replies
2
Views
1K
Equations of motion of damped oscillations due to kinetic friction
Replies
6
Views
1K
A Equations of Motion for Torsional Inverted Pendulum on a moving cart
Replies
2
Views
1K
Equations of Motion Revisited
Replies
2
Views
3K
B About Second equation of motion
Replies
5
Views
1K
B Understanding Average Velocity in Linear Motion with Constant Acceleration
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Pca and eigenvalue interpretation
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Principal component analysis (PCA) coefficients
Replies
29
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top