Intermediate Dynamics Books for Lagrange, Hamilton & Canonical Transformations

AI Thread Summary
For intermediate dynamics, "Classical Dynamics" by Marion and Thorndike is recommended as an excellent resource for understanding Lagrange and Hamilton treatments, as well as canonical transformations. The discussion highlights that "Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics" by Pytel and Kiusalaas is too introductory, while "Classical Mechanics" by Goldstein is considered advanced. Additionally, Greenwood's "Advanced Dynamics" is mentioned as another potential resource. Overall, the focus is on finding a suitable intermediate text to bridge the gap between introductory and advanced dynamics. This search emphasizes the importance of a solid foundation in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.
Pyrrhus
Homework Helper
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm looking for a good Dynamics Book. I got Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics by Andrew Pytel and Jaan Kiusalaas, but it's fairly introductional, i also got Classical Mechanics by Goldstein, which is advanced. I am looking for intermediate level.

I am looking mainly to learn the Lagrange and Hamilton Treatment, and Canonical Transformations.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Look for Marion and Thorndike, Classical Dynamics. I would consider it the best text to work through before tackling Goldstein.
 
Thanks Dr Transport, i will look into it, i was also checking out Greenwood's Advanced Dynamics.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Difference between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Mechanics
Replies
20
Views
10K
Why is Hamilton's Principle assumed to be valid for non-holonomic systems?
Replies
25
Views
3K
I Can Any Quantifiable Variable Serve as a Coordinate in Euler-Lagrange Equations?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Contributions to Dynamics - China
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Adding total time derivative to Lagrangian/Canonical Transformations
Replies
2
Views
190
I Does the Hamilton-Jacobi equation exist for chaotic systems?
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Proof that canonical transformation implies symplectic condition
Replies
7
Views
2K
A Hamilton's Method with Lagrange Equation and Constraint
Replies
1
Views
1K
Prerequisite mathematics for intermediate mechanics?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Classical Source recommendation on Differential Geometry
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top