Learn Lagrangian & Hamiltonian Mechanics without Calculus of Variations

AI Thread Summary
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics can be understood without mastering calculus of variations, appealing to those with a background in elementary calculus and Newtonian mechanics. Resources like Susskind's video lectures on classical mechanics provide accessible insights into these topics, similar to popular science treatments. The discussion emphasizes the desire for an overview rather than a traditional textbook approach. Participants express interest in materials that simplify complex concepts for a broader audience. Overall, there are alternative learning resources available that cater to non-experts in the field.
patrickd
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know of a treatment of Lagrangian and/or Hamiltonian mechanics that would be accessible to someone who is (or was, about forty years ago) reasonably fluent in elementary calculus and Newtonian mechanics? I am less interested in a college textbook than in an overview a la Brian Greene on String Theory or Bruce A. Schumm on particle physics. Is there a level of understanding to be had short of mastering the calculus of variations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org

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
I Action in Lagrangian Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Motivation for Lagrangian mechanics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Classical What Lagrangian mechanics textbook should I use?
Replies
8
Views
4K
Classical Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Celestial Mechanics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Classical Best analytical mechanics textbook recommandation
Replies
7
Views
15K
Book for Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics
Replies
12
Views
13K
Courses Interest in Areas of Classical Mechanics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Textbook for calculus of variations? Hamiltonian mechanics?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Calculus Gelfand & Fomin vs. Lanczos to learn Calculus of Variations
Replies
3
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top