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!
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top