B Feynman's lectures: Newton’s Laws of Dynamics

AI Thread Summary
Feynman's lectures on Newton's Laws of Dynamics emphasize the relationship between displacement, velocity, and time. In equation (9.13), displacement is approximated as the product of time elapsed and velocity, which becomes more accurate with smaller time increments. Equation (9.14) relates velocity to acceleration, while equation (9.15) highlights that acceleration equals negative displacement. Despite Feynman's clarity, some readers still feel gaps in their understanding of these concepts. The discussion underscores the effectiveness of Feynman's teaching style in conveying complex physics principles.
YanaFFF
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Please help me figure out equations 9.13, 9.14, 9.15 from the Feynman lectures on physics (Volume 1, Chapter 9). I don't really understand what exactly these functions mean and also why they need to be added or subtracted. (Explain as simply as possible). I will be very grateful for your help!
Physics news on Phys.org
It is hard to explain things better than Feynman :smile:

For eq. (9.13), if the velocity was constant, then
$$
x(t+\epsilon) = x(t) + \epsilon v_x
$$
would be exact, as the displacement in ##x## is time elapsed (##\epsilon##) multiplied by velocity (##v_x##). Since velocity depends on time, it is only an approximation; the smaller ##\epsilon##, the better.

Eq. (9.14), is the same, but for velocity in terms of acceleration. Eq. (9.15) follows from the fact that in this case acceleration is ##-x##, see eq. (9.12).
 
DrClaude said:
It is hard to explain things better than Feynman :smile:

For eq. (9.13), if the velocity was constant, then
$$
x(t+\epsilon) = x(t) + \epsilon v_x
$$
would be exact, as the displacement in ##x## is time elapsed (##\epsilon##) multiplied by velocity (##v_x##). Since velocity depends on time, it is only an approximation; the smaller ##\epsilon##, the better.

Eq. (9.14), is the same, but for velocity in terms of acceleration. Eq. (9.15) follows from the fact that in this case acceleration is ##-x##, see eq. (9.12).
Thank you very much! I agree that Feynman explains it well, but I still have gaps in my knowledge.
 
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