Energy and motion from ##R^6 \rightarrow R##

AI Thread Summary
Energy is defined as a function of space and velocity, remaining constant over time in ideal conditions. The discussion centers on the function E: R^6 → R, where motion is suggested to occur on a 5-dimensional surface rather than in 6-dimensional space. This concept is linked to the equation E = K(𝑣) + U(𝑥), indicating that energy is a combination of kinetic and potential energy. The question arises about the nature of the object defined by the equation f(x,y) = constant, which describes a geometric shape, specifically a circle in this context. Understanding these dimensions and their implications is crucial for grasping the relationship between energy and motion.
fcoulomb
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
We know that energy is a function of space and velocity and it’s constant (in ideal case) though time.
So ## E(\vec{x}(t) , \vec{\dot{x}}(t)) = E_0##

where ##\vec{x} , \vec{\dot{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^3##.
So my function is ##E : \mathbb{R}^6 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}##.

Then there is my question: my teacher said that the motion will not be in a 6-dimensional space but on a 5-dimensional *surface*.
I don’t understand that statement (and maybe I understood it wrongly).
Anybody can help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That fact ## E(\vec{x}(t) , \vec{\dot{x}}(t)) = E_0## is a consequence of ##E= K(\vec{\dot{x}})+ U(\vec{x})##
 
$$ f(x,y) =x^2 +y^2=R^2 $$
What kind of object is defined by f(x,y)=constant?
 
  • Like
Likes fcoulomb
nasu said:
$$ f(x,y) =x^2 +y^2=R^2 $$
What kind of object is defined by f(x,y)=constant?
Wow, thanks, you're right.
 
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...
Back
Top