The discussion revolves around the question of whether time can be considered a generalized coordinate in the context of classical dynamics. Participants explore theoretical implications and practical examples related to this concept.
Participants express disagreement regarding the status of time as a generalized coordinate, with some asserting it cannot be treated as such and others referencing alternative theoretical frameworks that suggest otherwise.
The discussion highlights the limitations of the mainstream view and the potential for alternative interpretations, but does not resolve the debate over the applicability of time as a generalized coordinate.
I guess, time is not a quantity in the sense of your book. It is the parameter parameterizing the dynamics.Visceral said:The title pretty much says it. According to my book, Classical Dynamics by Thornton and Marion, generalized coordinates can be quantities other than position such as energy or length squared, but what about time?
A. Neumaier said:I guess, time is not a quantity in the sense of your book. It is the parameter parameterizing the dynamics.
The main stream view is indeed ''no''. But there is a trickle of literature (I don't remember precise references now) which works in extended pase spase where time and energy are anotherr pair of conjugate variables. However, this approach has its own pitfalls and is not widely used because of that.nlsherrill said:I was just working on a problem the other day that had force as a function of position and time, and had to derive the potential and then the lagrangian and hamiltonian. So essentially, the answer is no?