How to generalize Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the generalization of Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics through the analysis of a differential equation involving a potential function U. The problem is defined with initial conditions and a piecewise potential, leading to distinct solutions based on the kinetic energy relative to the potential barrier. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of reformulating the problem mathematically to account for the non-differentiability of U at x=R, suggesting that the solution must exist within a specific domain. The participants explore the implications of this non-differentiability on the physical interpretation of the mechanics involved.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential equations, particularly second-order equations.
  • Familiarity with Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics principles.
  • Knowledge of potential energy functions and their implications in physics.
  • Basic concepts of distributions and test functions in mathematical analysis.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical formulation of piecewise functions in differential equations.
  • Explore the concept of distributions and their application in physics, particularly in mechanics.
  • Study the implications of non-differentiable points in potential energy functions.
  • Investigate the relationship between action principles and function spaces in theoretical physics.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mathematicians, and students studying mechanics, particularly those interested in the mathematical foundations of physical models and the implications of non-differentiability in potential functions.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
If I stated a problem that you have to find the solution

[tex] [0,\infty[\;\to\mathbb{R},\quad t\mapsto x(t)[/tex]

to the problem

[tex] x(0) = x_0 < R[/tex]
[tex] \dot{x}(0) = v_0 > 0[/tex]
[tex] m\ddot{x}(t) = -\partial_x U\big(x(t)\big),\quad\quad m>0[/tex]

where [itex]R, v_0, m[/itex] are some constants, and the function [itex]U[/itex] has been defined as

[tex] U(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}<br /> 0, & x\leq R \\<br /> \Omega, & x > R \\<br /> \end{array}\right.[/tex]

most people recognizing this as related to physics would probably state the solution as follows:

If [itex]\frac{1}{2}mv_0^2 <\Omega[/itex], then

[tex] x(t) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}<br /> x_0 + v_0 t,\quad &t\leq \frac{R-x_0}{v_0} \\<br /> R - v_0\big(t - \frac{R-x_0}{v_0}\big),\quad &t > \frac{R-x_0}{v_0} \\<br /> \end{array}\right.[/tex]

and if [itex]\frac{1}{2}mv_0^2 > \Omega[/itex], then

[tex] x(t) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}<br /> x_0 + v_0t,\quad & t\leq\frac{R-x_0}{v_0} \\<br /> R + \sqrt{v_0^2 - \frac{2\Omega}{m}}\big(t - \frac{R-x_0}{v_0}\big),\quad & t>\frac{R-x_0}{v_0} \\<br /> \end{array}\right.[/tex]

and if [itex]\frac{1}{2}mv_0^2 = \Omega[/itex], then I guess we don't know which one of these to choose. Perhaps they are both ok.

However, if we are speaking about differential equations like in mathematics, this would not be the correct answer. The correct answer is that the solution exists in the form

[tex] x:\big[0,\frac{R-x_0}{v_0}\big[\;\to\mathbb{R}[/tex]

and the domain cannot be extended from this, because the path hits a point where the function [itex]U[/itex] is not differentiable.

My question is that is it possible formulate a well defined mathematical problem, into which the solution would be the previous solution which we recognize as the physical one?

I'm asking this in the Topology and Analysis section of PF because I have a feeling that this could be related to distributions and related things. For example, in a sense the derivative of [itex]U[/itex] is infinite at the point [itex]x=R[/itex], and if the path [itex]x(t)[/itex] bounces back from it, in a sense the acceleration [itex]\ddot{x}[/itex] is momentarily infinite too, so it seems that the equation [itex]m\ddot{x}=-\partial_x U[/itex] could be making sense in some sense.

Of course I know how to make the equation

[tex] \partial_x \theta(x-x_0) = \delta(x-x_0)[/tex]

rigorous by using test functions to reformulate the equation, but I still don't know the answer to above described problem. How precisely would you reformulate the differential equation for the time evolution using some test functions?

If we approached this from the action point of view, what kind of function spaces would we need for the action? Would the test function spaces be related to the allowed variations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the discontinuity is part of your physical model, then it has to have some physical meaning. Otherwise your model has a flaw or isn't valid at this point. You cannot perform mathematical tricks and hope physics will follow them. You should start to physically investigate the neighborhood of ##U(R)##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K