Leonard Susskind : Classical Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a clarification regarding Leonard Susskind's lecture on classical mechanics, specifically the derivative of the first derivative squared. A participant questions Susskind's claim that d/dt (x')^2 equals 2x'', arguing that it should involve the chain rule correctly applied. The response emphasizes that Susskind is referencing the Euler-Lagrange equations, where the left-hand side involves the time derivative of the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to velocity, not the Lagrangian itself. It is noted that treating coordinate velocity as a variable is crucial for understanding the equations presented. The conversation invites further clarification if needed, indicating ongoing engagement with the lecture material.
Physics news on Phys.org
isn't the derivative of the first derivative squared:
d/dt (x')^2 = 2x'x''? why does susskind claim it is 2x'', in his classical lecture 3?
 
he assumes X(t) so 'x' is a function of time not only of x , he is using the chain rule
 
Ithink he is not using the chain rule properly. if x is a function of time only, d/dt (dx/dt)^2 = 2dx/dt * d^2x/dt^2
 
lolgarithms said:
Ithink he is not using the chain rule properly. if x is a function of time only, d/dt (dx/dt)^2 = 2dx/dt * d^2x/dt^2

You've already asked this question, and had it answered in another thread. I don't know where abouts in the video you've seen this, but I'm guessing it has to do with the Euler-Lagrange equations:

<br /> \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{x}}\Big)=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial x}

So, the LHS is not taking the time derivative of the Lagrangian, but is instead the time derivative of the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to the coordinate velocity. It is important to treat the coordinate velocity as a variable; that is \mathcal{L}\equiv\mathcal{L}(x, \dot{x}).

If this doesn't clear things up, let me know the exact time in the video that you're confused with, and I'll try and look at it.
 
cristo said:
You've already asked this question, and had it answered in another thread.

I had the thread deleted because i decided I wanted to post it here.
 
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?
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...
Back
Top