Help with Poisson Brackets (original paper)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a translation of Poisson's original paper regarding Poisson brackets, specifically questioning the absence of a second order derivative for the function a=f(q,u,t) after taking the time derivative. The user seeks clarification on whether there are restrictions on second order derivatives for constants of motion. A quotation from Wolfram suggests that a first integral associated with time must be independent of time and lack second or higher derivatives of coordinates. The user is confused about the reasoning behind the restriction on second order derivatives for a first integral of motion. The inquiry highlights a gap in understanding the mathematical framework surrounding constants of motion in the context of Poisson brackets.
gibsonphysics
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Here I have a translation from French to English of the original paper by Poisson about his brackets. I cannot understand why the function a=f(q,u,t) doesn't have a second order derivative (in q or u). The problem is on the top of the third page (second .JPG) after he took the time derivative. Can somebody help me?
 

Attachments

  • Poisson_1.JPG
    Poisson_1.JPG
    50.3 KB · Views: 435
  • Poisson_2.JPG
    Poisson_2.JPG
    56.3 KB · Views: 509
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Also, a=f(q,u,t) is a constant of motion. Is there any restriction about second order derivatives for q or u or (p) for a constant of motion?
 
Here is a quotation that I found on Wolfram website:

"A first integral associated with the independent variable t exist if f is independent of t and does not contain any second or higher derivatives of the coordinates."

Since we have a=f(q,u,t) as a firt integral, it will not have a second derivative of any canonical variables.

What I can't understand and ;also, I didn't find anywhere is why a first integral of the motion can't have a second order derivative.

Does anybody know?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top