jostpuur
- 2,112
- 19
I want that [0,\infty[\to\mathbb{R}, t\mapsto x(t) satisfies
<br /> \ddot{x}(t) = -\partial_x U(x)<br />
where U:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R} is some potential function. Then I set the initial conditions x(0) < 0, \dot{x}(0)>0, and define
<br /> U(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}<br /> 0,&\quad x < 0\\<br /> \textrm{Cantor steps},&\quad 0\leq x\leq 1\\<br /> 1,&\quad x > 1\\<br /> \end{array}\right.<br />
What's going to happen? How should the Newton's law be interpreted?
I've got a feeling that this has something to do with weak solutions, but it doesn't seem clear to me. For example
<br /> 0 = \int\Big(\ddot{\rho}(t) x(t) + \rho(t) \partial_xU(x(t))\Big) dt<br />
with some smooth test function \rho doesn't solve the problem, because you cannot get rid of \partial_x U with integration by parts.
<br /> \ddot{x}(t) = -\partial_x U(x)<br />
where U:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R} is some potential function. Then I set the initial conditions x(0) < 0, \dot{x}(0)>0, and define
<br /> U(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}<br /> 0,&\quad x < 0\\<br /> \textrm{Cantor steps},&\quad 0\leq x\leq 1\\<br /> 1,&\quad x > 1\\<br /> \end{array}\right.<br />
What's going to happen? How should the Newton's law be interpreted?
I've got a feeling that this has something to do with weak solutions, but it doesn't seem clear to me. For example
<br /> 0 = \int\Big(\ddot{\rho}(t) x(t) + \rho(t) \partial_xU(x(t))\Big) dt<br />
with some smooth test function \rho doesn't solve the problem, because you cannot get rid of \partial_x U with integration by parts.