Position as a function of energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of position as a function of energy, specifically kinetic and potential energy. Participants debate the invertibility of potential energy functions, with emphasis on gravitational potential energy, which is not always invertible in three dimensions due to multiple positions at a given radius. The conversation highlights the distinction between mathematical properties and their physical implications, suggesting that the original question may not align with physics principles. Clarification on the topic remains elusive, leading to a consensus that the inquiry may be more suited for a mathematics-focused discussion. The thread concludes without a definitive resolution to the original question.
dsaun777
Messages
296
Reaction score
39
I've seen position as a function of time in Newtonian physics and potential energy as a function of position, is there an inverse? Any instance where position is a function of energy eg KE, PE. Maybe this is more appropriate for quantum mechanics or modern physics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dsaun777 said:
Any instance where position is a function of energy eg KE, PE.

I'm not sure what you mean by "position is a function of energy". Obviously in mathematical terms any invertible function can be inverted, and typical potential energy functions are invertible. But that doesn't tell you anything about the physics. You need to explain what you mean in terms of physics before we can answer your question.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
PeterDonis said:
and typical potential energy functions are invertible

Really? The gravitational potential energy is typical but the function of position is not invertible - not even in the one-dimensional case.
 
PeterDonis said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "position is a function of energy". Obviously in mathematical terms any invertible function can be inverted, and typical potential energy functions are invertible. But that doesn't tell you anything about the physics. You need to explain what you mean in terms of physics before we can answer your question.
For instance, we can make accurate enough predictions for a particles trajectory but there comes a point where we have to measure the particle to define exactly where it is.
 
DrStupid said:
The gravitational potential energy is typical but the function of position is not invertible - not even in the one-dimensional case.

Huh? ##1/r## is invertible (except for the edge case of ##r = 0##, but that can easily be handled with limits).
 
dsaun777 said:
we can make accurate enough predictions for a particles trajectory but there comes a point where we have to measure the particle to define exactly where it is

What does this have to do with "position as a function of energy"? I still don't understand what you're trying to ask.
 
PeterDonis said:
Huh? ##1/r## is invertible

##1/|r|## is not
 
DrStupid said:
##1/|r|## is not

It is for the range ##0 < r < \infty##, which is the relevant range.
 
PeterDonis said:
What does this have to do with "position as a function of energy"? I still don't understand what you're trying to ask.
Not too sure how to clarify it further. But you sort of answered by saying that potential functions are invertible. Could you elaborate on how they are invertible?
 
  • #10
dsaun777 said:
you sort of answered by saying that potential functions are invertible

Actually, that's not always true; @DrStupid correctly pointed out that in 3 dimensions, the standard gravitational potential function is not invertible (since it depends on the radius and there are multiple positions at any given radius).

In any case, as I said before, "invertible" is a mathematical property, not a physical property. If all you're interested in is what mathematical functions are invertible, that is a separate discussion that belongs in the math forum, not the physics forum. Here we assume your question is about physics.
 
  • #11
dsaun777 said:
Not too sure how to clarify it further.

In that case, this thread is closed.
 
Back
Top