What are the problems with a path dependent potentials?

AI Thread Summary
Path-dependent potentials, such as magnetic scalar potential and normal electric potential in changing electric fields, present challenges like multivalued outcomes and complex computations, as even minor path variations can alter results. Returning to an original position does not guarantee a return to the original state unless the path is precisely reversed, indicating a lack of conservative force characteristics. While path-independent potentials allow for quick calculations through conservation of energy, path-dependent scenarios complicate analysis and limit general applicability. Despite these difficulties, much of physics focuses on conservative forces, which simplifies many problems. Overall, while path-dependent potentials are not inherently flawed, they require careful handling and often yield less straightforward results.
Shing Ernst
Messages
27
Reaction score
1
What exactly are the problems with a path-dependent potentials? (e.g. magnetic scalar potential, normal electric potential over a changing electric field)
I came up with this question, but can't be sure.
The problems with such potential seem to me may be multivalued, as well as making the computation too complicated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Every little wiggle in the path can change the value. Also, returning to the original position will not get you back to the original state unless you exactly reverse the path. You are not dealing with a conservative force or a potential energy function.
 
I am thinking if there is actually nothing wrong with path dependent potentials? just because path-independent potential so powerful that some of us split on path dependent potentials...? (Since sometimes we can calculate things in seconds thanks to conservation of energy, which is guaranteed by path-independent potential)
(btw, a friend of mine on the Internet reminded me a few search on Google, it seems has something to do with Feynman's path integral.)
 
Last edited:
Shing Ernst said:
I am thinking if there is actually nothing wrong with path dependent potentials? just because path-independent potential so powerful that some of us split on path dependent potentials...? (Since sometimes we can calculate things in seconds thanks to conservation of energy, which is guaranteed by path-independent potential)
(btw, a friend of mine on the Internet reminded me a few search on Google, it seems has something to do with Feynman's path integral.)
If you are dealing with something that is path dependent, then you have no choice. But just try writing one down and you will see that it is difficult. And even if you do that, the things you can say about it only apply to that one path. Luckily, so much interesting and important physics deals with conservative forces and potentials (gravity, electro-magnetic, etc. ) that it is not much of a problem. And a lot more can be done if the paths are restricted to avoid circling around singularities.
 
  • Like
Likes Shing Ernst and fresh_42
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