System and phase space trajectory

AI Thread Summary
Phase space trajectories are often seen as essential for describing classical systems, but their role is more nuanced. While these trajectories can represent the solutions to equations of motion, they include specific parameterizations that can lead to different interpretations of the same physical situation. For example, the trajectory defined by x^2 + p^2 = 1 does not uniquely specify initial conditions without additional context. This suggests that while phase space provides a geometric representation, it may not be strictly necessary for describing physical systems, as one can derive trajectories directly from equations of motion. Ultimately, both phase space and direct solutions are interchangeable tools in understanding system dynamics.
Logic Cloud
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
To what extent do phase space trajectories describe a system? I often see classical systems being identified with (trajectories in) phase space, from which I get the impression these trajectories are supposed to completely specify a system. However, if you take for example the trajectory x^2+p^2=1 for a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator, it is still left open if x(t=0)=0 or x(t=0)=1 which corresponds to two different parameterizations of the circle. This leads me to ask: what is the role of phase space trajectories in the description of physical systems?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A phase trajectory, by definition, includes a particular parametrization in its specification. It's a path through configuration space, with a path being defined as a continuous map from an interval in the real numbers to the path's range. So, ##x^2 + y^2 = 1## isn't a trajectory, it's just a curve. A corresponding trajectory would be ##t\in[0,1) \rightarrow (\cos t, \sin t)##, etc. You can always reparametrize, but then you have a different trajectory.
 
Last edited:
I see. So there really isn't any need for the concept of phase space for describing physical systems, since the trajectory can be found by just solving the equation of motion directly. My question was motivated by the classical variant of the Dirac-Von Neumann axioms where a classical system is associated with phase space, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.
 
Trajectories in phase space are just geometric representations of the solutions to the equations of motion. It's not one or the other, they're interchangeable.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top