Equation of Motion: Understand Last Sentence

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of a statement regarding the determination of a system's motion in physics. It emphasizes that while specifying coordinates and velocities can define a system's state, the accelerations also depend on the forces acting on the system. The Lagrangian framework is highlighted, where the action is derived from the difference between kinetic and potential energies, allowing for the calculation of equations of motion. Some participants argue that the statement is accurate, provided that all forces are known, while others suggest it oversimplifies the relationship between motion and forces. Ultimately, the consensus is that accelerations can be uniquely defined under certain conditions, particularly when parameters are independent of time.
rasensuriken
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I came across this from a book saying that:
If all the co-ordinates and velocities are simultaneously specified, it is known from experience that the state of the system is completely determined and that its subsequent motion can, in principle, be calculated. Mathematically, this means that, if all the co-ordinates q and velocities dq/dt are given at some instant, the accelerations d^{2}q/dt^{2} at that instant are uniquely defined.

May i know what is meant by the last sentence?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is an example of the application of Lagrangian physics. In Lagrangian physics, you can specify the Lagrangian of the system (the difference between the kinetic and potential energies) as a function of position, velocity and time. The integral of the Lagrangian over time is called the action. The equations of motion for a classical system are ones which make the action stationary. This can be solved in a variety of ways.

The associated wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics )

So yes, the statement is true but there is a bit of work that you have to do to get the equations of motion out of it. I'm sure you could probably do it also via a different means, maybe using Hamiltonian physics but I am not very familiar with working with Hamiltonians (as horrible as that fact may be) outside of quantum physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rasensuriken said:
...Mathematically, this means that, if all the co-ordinates q and velocities dq/dt are given at some instant, the accelerations d^{2}q/dt^{2} at that instant are uniquely defined.

May i know what is meant by the last sentence?

It is a somewhat wrong statement. The accelerations are also determined with forces that should be given too. The external and inter-particle forces depend on coordinates and velocities, so if the force dependencies are known, the future of the system is calculated from the initial data and the given forces. It is just like for one-particle system: you specify the initial data and a force to calculate the time dependence of your variables.
 
hmm...but i think the book should be more or less accurate...i quote this from the book "Mechanics" by L.D.Landau...i do have the same opinion as yours when i am reading this...But considering Born2bwire's i think the statement is alright, since the Lagrangian is T-U, in which the potential energy also being taken care of (i.e. if U depend on the position then it's being taken into account) =). Thanks everyone =)
 
Last edited:
rasensuriken said:
... Mathematically, this means that, if all the co-ordinates q and velocities dq/dt are given at some instant, the accelerations d2q/dt2 at that instant are uniquely defined. May i know what is meant by the last sentence?
This is correct as long as the accelerations are independent of time. If every parameter is independent of time, then the motion is uniquely defined.
 
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...
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