Hessian matrix of the Newtonian potential is zero?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Hessian of the Newtonian potential, with the initial claim that it equals zero due to certain mathematical manipulations. The calculations involve the relationship between force, mass, and the second derivatives of position with respect to time. However, a critical error is identified in the assumption that mixed partial derivatives can be freely swapped, as acceleration is time-dependent and cannot be treated as a simple function of spatial coordinates. The correct approach emphasizes the need to account for the dependency of acceleration on time, leading to a non-zero result for the Hessian. The conclusion highlights the importance of careful differentiation when dealing with time-dependent variables.
Chain
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
So I'm looking at the hessian of the Newtonian potential:

\partial^2\phi / \partial x_i \partial x_j

Using the fact that (assuming the mass is constant):

F = m \cdot d^2 x / d t^2 = - \nabla \phi

This implies:

\partial^2\phi / \partial x_i \partial x_j = -m \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} (d^2 x_i / d t^2) = -m \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} (\partial^2 x_i / \partial t^2)

As we can swap the total derivatives for partial derivatives since for Cartesian coordinates:

\partial x_i / \partial x_j = \delta_{ij}

Using the fact that we can swap the order of differentiation for mixed partials (assuming continuity of the partial derivatives) we obtain:

\partial^2\phi / \partial x_i \partial x_j = -m \cdot \partial^3 x_i / \partial x_j \partial t^2 = -m \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial t^2} \partial x_i / \partial x_j = -m \cdot 0 = 0

Hence I obtain the result that the hessian of the Newtonian potential is zero which can't possibly be correct but I can't find the error in my calculation.

Any help would be much appreciated :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you wrote doesn't make too much sense and the mathematical manipulations are illegal. Acceleration depends on time, coordinate depends on time: a(x) = a(t(x)). Good luck reverting x(t) into t(x).
 
So the problem is in the last step where I swap the order of differentiation because it is not possible to find time as a function of position?

I guess the proper expression for the differential of acceleration with respect to a spatial coordinate is:

\partial a(t(x)) / \partial x = \frac{\partial a(t)}{\partial t} \cdot \frac{\partial t}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial a(t)}{\partial t} \cdot (\frac{\partial x}{\partial t})^{-1}

Which is clearly non-zero.
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top