Generalised energy and energy (lagrangian mechanics)

AI Thread Summary
In Lagrangian mechanics, kinetic energy being quadratic implies that energy equals generalized energy. However, this condition also suggests that none of the position vectors depend explicitly on time. It is possible for a Lagrangian to be time-independent, leading to conserved generalized energy, even when kinetic energy is not quadratic, which means energy does not equal generalized energy. The formulas for generalized energy and energy are provided, highlighting their relationship. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for mastering Lagrangian mechanics.
supaman5
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm doing lagrangian mechanics and trying to understand my notes, are these three statements correct:

1. If kinetic energy is quadratic then energy equals generalised energy.
2. Saying kinetic energy of a system is quadratic is the same as saying none of the position vectors in a system depend explicitly on time.
3. A lagrangian can be independent of time (generalised energy is conserved) even if kinetic energy is not quadratic (energy DOESN'T equal generalised energy)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hopefully putting the formulas for generalised energy and energy might help:

L=T-V (kin-pot)

generalised energy: h= \sum\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\dot{q}-L where \dot{q} should be bold and is the time derivative vector for all generalised coordinates.

and energy: E=T+V

Took me about an hour to write out that formula...FAIL.
 
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