Why only positions and velocities

  • Thread starter Thread starter maze
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on why the state of a physical system is defined solely by positions and velocities, rather than other derivatives. It highlights that classical mechanics cannot fully explain this, except through a theorem ensuring unique solutions for specific initial conditions. The conversation suggests that this simplicity may stem from the necessity of low energy approximations in quantum field theories (QFTs), which align with special relativity. Higher-order derivatives in QFTs are present but become negligible due to non-renormalizability in low energy limits. This leads to the conclusion that classical equations of motion are inherently simpler than their quantum counterparts.
maze
Messages
661
Reaction score
4
Why is the state of a physical system completely determined by only positions and velocities, rather than (possibly) other derivatives?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This can't be answered in the framework of classical mechanics, other than by pointing out that there's a theorem that guarantees that a differential equation of the form

\vec x''(t)=\vec f(\vec x'(t),\vec x(t),t)

has exactly one solution for each initial condition, i.e. for each pair of equations of the form

\vec x(t_0)=\vec x_0
\vec x'(t_0)=\vec v_0

We're just "lucky" that the functions that describe the acceleration caused by gravitational or electromagnetic interactions have that simple form.

I believe that the reason for it can be traced back to the fact (more of a conjecture really) that any theory of interacting matter must have a low energy approximation in the form of a quantum field theory in order to be consistent with special relativity. The QFTs can contain higher-order derivatives of the fields, which (I'm guessing) imply that the best possible classical equation of motion is a more complicated differential equation. But the terms in the Lagrangian that contain those higher order terms suffer from a condition called non-renormalizability, and that makes them negligible in the low energy limit.
 
Check out this YouTube video, I watched it only yesterday and I think it'll answer your question. It's 50 minutes, but well worth it!
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top