I Hamilton’s principle maximises potential energy?

AI Thread Summary
Hamilton's principle minimizes the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy, effectively maximizing potential energy when kinetic energy is fixed. In scenarios where kinetic energy or mass is negligible, the Lagrangian simplifies to the negative of potential energy. The discussion references Feynman's explanation in his lectures, particularly around Fig 19-6, to illustrate these concepts. The limit of kinetic energy approaching zero raises questions about the meaningfulness of maximizing potential energy in this context. Ultimately, the focus remains on finding the path where the integral of kinetic and potential energy is extreme.
sentai
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Hamilton’s principle minimises kinetic energy minus potential energy, that is, with a fixed kinetic energy, Hamilton's principle maximises potential energy. What if we consider the limit that the kinetic energy or the mass/the inertia can be ignored then the lagrangian is solely the negative of potential energy. How to understand the potential energy needs to be maximised?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anuttarasammyak said:
Feynmann does a good explanation around Fig 19.3 in https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html.
Thank you, however, I don't think he said anything about maximization of PE and its meaning?
 
Sorry, Fig 19-6 and its around explains it.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and sentai
anuttarasammyak said:
Sorry, Fig 19-6 and its around explains it.
Thanks for pointing it out. Then how should we understand the limit of KE->0, then min(L)=-max(PE)?
 
As Feynman stated we are looking for the path KE-PE integral on which should be extreme.
KE=0 takes place at the top of trajectory in Fig 19-6 but I do not think considering such "limit of KE->0" is meaningful.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top