What is the physical interpretation of this calculus of variations problem?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a physics problem related to classical mechanics, specifically the use of the equation u=c*x^2. Participants express confusion about the meaning of the constant c, clarifying that it is not the speed of light but rather a constant similar to those used in spring potential energy equations. The conversation highlights the connection to the Lagrangian mechanics framework, particularly in the context of simple harmonic motion. The conserved quantity of energy is emphasized as a key element in solving the problem. Overall, the thread seeks to clarify foundational concepts in classical physics.
catpants
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
It seems like a problem that a physicist would need to solve, but I can't wrap my head around the physical interpretation of it.

http://exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/CoV7

Also, why do they use u=c*x2? What is c in this case? It says "classical" so it can't be the speed of light, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i believe it is a constant


something like 1/2 kx2 for spring potential energy
 
I agree, its clearly the Lagrangian for motion near an equilibrium such as the simple harmonic motion of a mass on a spring in the absence of gravity. They used the conserved quantity (energy) to solve the problem.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'

Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'

I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
View full post »

Thread 'Why is the 3 body problem unsolvable? And what will happen if someone solves it?'

I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
View full post »

Similar threads

I How did Hamilton derive the characteristic function V in his essay?
Replies
3
Views
1K
B The physics explanation of ~bendy~ rays
Replies
4
Views
988
Is this a good self-study program?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Calculus in Physics: Internal Energy Explained
Replies
8
Views
1K
A When should I analyze optical problems using ray tracing vs. wavefront analysis?
Replies
12
Views
329
Geometry Geometrical books (differential geometry, tensors, variational mech.)
Replies
2
Views
2K
Physical Interpretation of EM Field Lagrangian
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Bell's spaceship paradox unknown? Interpretation?
Replies
20
Views
2K
I Which version of the Kepler Problem is correct?
Replies
4
Views
1K
I New interpretations of the Pioneer effect ?
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top