Why $F(mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t)$ and not $F(mathbf q,t)$?Why is $frac{operatorname dy'}{operatorname dy}$...

Did CPM support custom hardware using device drivers?

An Accountant Seeks the Help of a Mathematician

Informing my boss about remarks from a nasty colleague

Rules about breaking the rules. How do I do it well?

What options are left, if Britain cannot decide?

Happy pi day, everyone!

Can anyone tell me why this program fails?

Dot in front of file

Current sense amp + op-amp buffer + ADC: Measuring down to 0 with single supply

How to write cleanly even if my character uses expletive language?

At what level can a dragon innately cast its spells?

What are some nice/clever ways to introduce the tonic's dominant seventh chord?

Does splitting a potentially monolithic application into several smaller ones help prevent bugs?

Humanity loses the vast majority of its technology, information, and population in the year 2122. How long does it take to rebuild itself?

PTIJ: Who should pay for Uber rides: the child or the parent?

Why do Australian milk farmers need to protest supermarkets' milk price?

Have researchers managed to "reverse time"? If so, what does that mean for physics?

Russian cases: A few examples, I'm really confused

Brexit - No Deal Rejection

Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths

Meaning of "SEVERA INDEOVI VAS" from 3rd Century slab

Be in awe of my brilliance!

How do I interpret this "sky cover" chart?

RegionDifference for Cylinder and Cuboid



Why $F(mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t)$ and not $F(mathbf q,t)$?


Why is $frac{operatorname dy'}{operatorname dy}$ zero, since $y'$ depends on $y$?How to solve the differential equation for the motion equation of a body in a gravitational field from one fixed sourceVector differential equation problemAngular momentum cylindrical coördinatesShow that particle whose position satisfies $frac{d mathbf{r}}{dt}= mathbf{c} times mathbf{r}$ moves in a circular path with constant speedMissing equation in coordinate system transformation?Solutions for differential equationCan't get rid of integrals solving this differential equation.Show that the kinetic energy may be written $T=frac12mmathbf{ucdot((ucdot v)v−}{r^2mathbf{ddot u}})$- why does $mathbf{dot rcdot r}=dot rr$?Mechanics Polar Coordinates Question (Circular Motion)General solution of $ddot x-3dot x+2x=e^tsin(t)$













4












$begingroup$


In beginner classical mechanics, which I've just started learning, a particle with coordinates $mathbf qinmathbb R^n$ has its equation of motion specified by $F(mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t)=mddot{mathbf q}$. Force is a function of all the coordinates necessary to describe the (rigid) body, and should cover all the degrees of freedom in the system. However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description. I'm not sure I understand why this isn't the case, but my best guess is as follows.



If $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q}$ are given in a differential equation, such as $dot{mathbf q}=t^mathbf qmathbf q^dot{mathbf q}$, then it's necessary to specify all of $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t$ in order to locate its position and velocity at any given time, unless the differential equation has a solution and we use it.



But this explanation is strange to me. Since we can have a $k$th-order differential equation which specifies $mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q$ with no obvious solution, wouldn't that mean our equation of motion is actually $F(mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q,t)=mfrac{d^2}{dt^2}mathbf q$?



Edit The differential equation above which has a vector exponentiated by a vector is just a poorly thought-out attempt at an example of a diff eq with no obvious solution to me, it doesn't really matter what it is. Or if you want to consider that case, treat it as a 1D system, I guess.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    this properly belongs to physics.SE
    $endgroup$
    – Mister Benjamin Dover
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:05






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @side1066 A force might depend explicitly on the velocity, think of friction.
    $endgroup$
    – johndoe
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @johndoe And we know that it doesn't explicitly depend on acceleration, jerk, and all the others?
    $endgroup$
    – ok_
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The force depending on higher derivatives would seem rather nonphysical, because such a system would not be causal. The $n$th derivative could depend on the $0$th, $1$st, ..., $n-1$th derivatives, though. But this can be put into the same form by appropriately choosing the vector $q$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's been thirty+ years since I studied Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics, but the reason to include $dot{q}$ in the list of variables is that, when studying generalized momenta, you want calculate partial derivatives like $partial F/partial dot{q}$. Including it serves as a reminder (or rather we take those partial derivative of the Lagrangian, but anyway, $q$, and $dot q$ are in a sense independent variables.)
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:50


















4












$begingroup$


In beginner classical mechanics, which I've just started learning, a particle with coordinates $mathbf qinmathbb R^n$ has its equation of motion specified by $F(mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t)=mddot{mathbf q}$. Force is a function of all the coordinates necessary to describe the (rigid) body, and should cover all the degrees of freedom in the system. However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description. I'm not sure I understand why this isn't the case, but my best guess is as follows.



If $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q}$ are given in a differential equation, such as $dot{mathbf q}=t^mathbf qmathbf q^dot{mathbf q}$, then it's necessary to specify all of $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t$ in order to locate its position and velocity at any given time, unless the differential equation has a solution and we use it.



But this explanation is strange to me. Since we can have a $k$th-order differential equation which specifies $mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q$ with no obvious solution, wouldn't that mean our equation of motion is actually $F(mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q,t)=mfrac{d^2}{dt^2}mathbf q$?



Edit The differential equation above which has a vector exponentiated by a vector is just a poorly thought-out attempt at an example of a diff eq with no obvious solution to me, it doesn't really matter what it is. Or if you want to consider that case, treat it as a 1D system, I guess.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    this properly belongs to physics.SE
    $endgroup$
    – Mister Benjamin Dover
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:05






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @side1066 A force might depend explicitly on the velocity, think of friction.
    $endgroup$
    – johndoe
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @johndoe And we know that it doesn't explicitly depend on acceleration, jerk, and all the others?
    $endgroup$
    – ok_
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The force depending on higher derivatives would seem rather nonphysical, because such a system would not be causal. The $n$th derivative could depend on the $0$th, $1$st, ..., $n-1$th derivatives, though. But this can be put into the same form by appropriately choosing the vector $q$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's been thirty+ years since I studied Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics, but the reason to include $dot{q}$ in the list of variables is that, when studying generalized momenta, you want calculate partial derivatives like $partial F/partial dot{q}$. Including it serves as a reminder (or rather we take those partial derivative of the Lagrangian, but anyway, $q$, and $dot q$ are in a sense independent variables.)
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:50
















4












4








4





$begingroup$


In beginner classical mechanics, which I've just started learning, a particle with coordinates $mathbf qinmathbb R^n$ has its equation of motion specified by $F(mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t)=mddot{mathbf q}$. Force is a function of all the coordinates necessary to describe the (rigid) body, and should cover all the degrees of freedom in the system. However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description. I'm not sure I understand why this isn't the case, but my best guess is as follows.



If $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q}$ are given in a differential equation, such as $dot{mathbf q}=t^mathbf qmathbf q^dot{mathbf q}$, then it's necessary to specify all of $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t$ in order to locate its position and velocity at any given time, unless the differential equation has a solution and we use it.



But this explanation is strange to me. Since we can have a $k$th-order differential equation which specifies $mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q$ with no obvious solution, wouldn't that mean our equation of motion is actually $F(mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q,t)=mfrac{d^2}{dt^2}mathbf q$?



Edit The differential equation above which has a vector exponentiated by a vector is just a poorly thought-out attempt at an example of a diff eq with no obvious solution to me, it doesn't really matter what it is. Or if you want to consider that case, treat it as a 1D system, I guess.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In beginner classical mechanics, which I've just started learning, a particle with coordinates $mathbf qinmathbb R^n$ has its equation of motion specified by $F(mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t)=mddot{mathbf q}$. Force is a function of all the coordinates necessary to describe the (rigid) body, and should cover all the degrees of freedom in the system. However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description. I'm not sure I understand why this isn't the case, but my best guess is as follows.



If $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q}$ are given in a differential equation, such as $dot{mathbf q}=t^mathbf qmathbf q^dot{mathbf q}$, then it's necessary to specify all of $mathbf q,dot{mathbf q},t$ in order to locate its position and velocity at any given time, unless the differential equation has a solution and we use it.



But this explanation is strange to me. Since we can have a $k$th-order differential equation which specifies $mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q$ with no obvious solution, wouldn't that mean our equation of motion is actually $F(mathbf q,frac{d}{dt}mathbf q,ldots,frac{d^k}{dt^k}mathbf q,t)=mfrac{d^2}{dt^2}mathbf q$?



Edit The differential equation above which has a vector exponentiated by a vector is just a poorly thought-out attempt at an example of a diff eq with no obvious solution to me, it doesn't really matter what it is. Or if you want to consider that case, treat it as a 1D system, I guess.







ordinary-differential-equations physics classical-mechanics






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 10 at 12:17









Andrews

1,2691421




1,2691421










asked Jan 18 '15 at 21:02









ok_ok_

1149




1149








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    this properly belongs to physics.SE
    $endgroup$
    – Mister Benjamin Dover
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:05






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @side1066 A force might depend explicitly on the velocity, think of friction.
    $endgroup$
    – johndoe
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @johndoe And we know that it doesn't explicitly depend on acceleration, jerk, and all the others?
    $endgroup$
    – ok_
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The force depending on higher derivatives would seem rather nonphysical, because such a system would not be causal. The $n$th derivative could depend on the $0$th, $1$st, ..., $n-1$th derivatives, though. But this can be put into the same form by appropriately choosing the vector $q$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's been thirty+ years since I studied Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics, but the reason to include $dot{q}$ in the list of variables is that, when studying generalized momenta, you want calculate partial derivatives like $partial F/partial dot{q}$. Including it serves as a reminder (or rather we take those partial derivative of the Lagrangian, but anyway, $q$, and $dot q$ are in a sense independent variables.)
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:50
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    this properly belongs to physics.SE
    $endgroup$
    – Mister Benjamin Dover
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:05






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @side1066 A force might depend explicitly on the velocity, think of friction.
    $endgroup$
    – johndoe
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @johndoe And we know that it doesn't explicitly depend on acceleration, jerk, and all the others?
    $endgroup$
    – ok_
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The force depending on higher derivatives would seem rather nonphysical, because such a system would not be causal. The $n$th derivative could depend on the $0$th, $1$st, ..., $n-1$th derivatives, though. But this can be put into the same form by appropriately choosing the vector $q$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's been thirty+ years since I studied Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics, but the reason to include $dot{q}$ in the list of variables is that, when studying generalized momenta, you want calculate partial derivatives like $partial F/partial dot{q}$. Including it serves as a reminder (or rather we take those partial derivative of the Lagrangian, but anyway, $q$, and $dot q$ are in a sense independent variables.)
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Jan 18 '15 at 21:50










1




1




$begingroup$
this properly belongs to physics.SE
$endgroup$
– Mister Benjamin Dover
Jan 18 '15 at 21:05




$begingroup$
this properly belongs to physics.SE
$endgroup$
– Mister Benjamin Dover
Jan 18 '15 at 21:05




1




1




$begingroup$
@side1066 A force might depend explicitly on the velocity, think of friction.
$endgroup$
– johndoe
Jan 18 '15 at 21:14




$begingroup$
@side1066 A force might depend explicitly on the velocity, think of friction.
$endgroup$
– johndoe
Jan 18 '15 at 21:14




1




1




$begingroup$
@johndoe And we know that it doesn't explicitly depend on acceleration, jerk, and all the others?
$endgroup$
– ok_
Jan 18 '15 at 21:15




$begingroup$
@johndoe And we know that it doesn't explicitly depend on acceleration, jerk, and all the others?
$endgroup$
– ok_
Jan 18 '15 at 21:15




2




2




$begingroup$
The force depending on higher derivatives would seem rather nonphysical, because such a system would not be causal. The $n$th derivative could depend on the $0$th, $1$st, ..., $n-1$th derivatives, though. But this can be put into the same form by appropriately choosing the vector $q$.
$endgroup$
– Ian
Jan 18 '15 at 21:28




$begingroup$
The force depending on higher derivatives would seem rather nonphysical, because such a system would not be causal. The $n$th derivative could depend on the $0$th, $1$st, ..., $n-1$th derivatives, though. But this can be put into the same form by appropriately choosing the vector $q$.
$endgroup$
– Ian
Jan 18 '15 at 21:28




2




2




$begingroup$
It's been thirty+ years since I studied Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics, but the reason to include $dot{q}$ in the list of variables is that, when studying generalized momenta, you want calculate partial derivatives like $partial F/partial dot{q}$. Including it serves as a reminder (or rather we take those partial derivative of the Lagrangian, but anyway, $q$, and $dot q$ are in a sense independent variables.)
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Jan 18 '15 at 21:50






$begingroup$
It's been thirty+ years since I studied Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics, but the reason to include $dot{q}$ in the list of variables is that, when studying generalized momenta, you want calculate partial derivatives like $partial F/partial dot{q}$. Including it serves as a reminder (or rather we take those partial derivative of the Lagrangian, but anyway, $q$, and $dot q$ are in a sense independent variables.)
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Jan 18 '15 at 21:50












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$


However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description.




While it's true that the function $q$ determines its derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$, it's not true that the value of $q$ at a particular value $t_0$ of $t$ determines the value of the derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$ at that same value. The Lagrangian has a value at a particular time $t_0$ which is a function of the three numbers $q(t_0), q'(t_0)$, and $t_0$. In particular, it depends on more information than $q(t_0)$, but on less information than all of the higher derivatives of $q$ at $t_0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This makes a lot of sense. $F$ is a function on certain values, since it needs to be a function of all the coordinates which correspond to the system's degrees of freedom. But say $qin A$ and $dot qin B$ and the function $dot q(q(t))=frac{dq}{dt}$ (evaluated at given $t$) is a bijection between $A$ and $B$. Then the value of $q$ at $t_0$ gives me the value of $dot q$ at $t_0$, so it would be fine in this special case to consider $F(q,t)=mddot q$?
    $endgroup$
    – ok_
    Jan 19 '15 at 3:31





















1












$begingroup$

Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian mechanics (specifically d'Alembert's principle of virtual works), i.e. sets of second order ODEs. Under some regularity conditions, these second order ODEs can be turned into a system of first order ODEs, where the $q$s and the $dot q$s are independent variables. Hence if you want to retrieve the equations of motion out of a Lagrangian (or an action principle), this must depend on the $q$s and the $dot q$s. Observe that the action integral itself is assumed to depend on the trajectory alone, i.e.



$$S[q] = int_a^b L(q(t),dot q(t), t)text dt.$$



Hamilton noticed that there is a standard procedure for passing from Euler-Lagrange equations, which are the second order ODEs of Newtonian mechanics, to the equivalent system of first order ODEs. For this to work, the condition is that the Hessian of $L$ w.r.t. the $dot q$ should not vanish (so it must be positive definite on the domain of interest, i.e $L$ is concave w.r.t. the $dot q$s). Such equations are the Hamilton equation coming from the Hamiltonian, which is the Legendre transform of $L$ w.r.t. the generalised velocities.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1109623%2fwhy-f-mathbf-q-dot-mathbf-q-t-and-not-f-mathbf-q-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$


    However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description.




    While it's true that the function $q$ determines its derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$, it's not true that the value of $q$ at a particular value $t_0$ of $t$ determines the value of the derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$ at that same value. The Lagrangian has a value at a particular time $t_0$ which is a function of the three numbers $q(t_0), q'(t_0)$, and $t_0$. In particular, it depends on more information than $q(t_0)$, but on less information than all of the higher derivatives of $q$ at $t_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This makes a lot of sense. $F$ is a function on certain values, since it needs to be a function of all the coordinates which correspond to the system's degrees of freedom. But say $qin A$ and $dot qin B$ and the function $dot q(q(t))=frac{dq}{dt}$ (evaluated at given $t$) is a bijection between $A$ and $B$. Then the value of $q$ at $t_0$ gives me the value of $dot q$ at $t_0$, so it would be fine in this special case to consider $F(q,t)=mddot q$?
      $endgroup$
      – ok_
      Jan 19 '15 at 3:31


















    4












    $begingroup$


    However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description.




    While it's true that the function $q$ determines its derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$, it's not true that the value of $q$ at a particular value $t_0$ of $t$ determines the value of the derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$ at that same value. The Lagrangian has a value at a particular time $t_0$ which is a function of the three numbers $q(t_0), q'(t_0)$, and $t_0$. In particular, it depends on more information than $q(t_0)$, but on less information than all of the higher derivatives of $q$ at $t_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This makes a lot of sense. $F$ is a function on certain values, since it needs to be a function of all the coordinates which correspond to the system's degrees of freedom. But say $qin A$ and $dot qin B$ and the function $dot q(q(t))=frac{dq}{dt}$ (evaluated at given $t$) is a bijection between $A$ and $B$. Then the value of $q$ at $t_0$ gives me the value of $dot q$ at $t_0$, so it would be fine in this special case to consider $F(q,t)=mddot q$?
      $endgroup$
      – ok_
      Jan 19 '15 at 3:31
















    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$


    However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description.




    While it's true that the function $q$ determines its derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$, it's not true that the value of $q$ at a particular value $t_0$ of $t$ determines the value of the derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$ at that same value. The Lagrangian has a value at a particular time $t_0$ which is a function of the three numbers $q(t_0), q'(t_0)$, and $t_0$. In particular, it depends on more information than $q(t_0)$, but on less information than all of the higher derivatives of $q$ at $t_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




    However, it seems to me that since $dot{mathbf q}=frac{dmathbf q}{dt}$, it's only necessary to specify $F(mathbf q,t)$ for a complete description.




    While it's true that the function $q$ determines its derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$, it's not true that the value of $q$ at a particular value $t_0$ of $t$ determines the value of the derivative $frac{dq}{dt}$ at that same value. The Lagrangian has a value at a particular time $t_0$ which is a function of the three numbers $q(t_0), q'(t_0)$, and $t_0$. In particular, it depends on more information than $q(t_0)$, but on less information than all of the higher derivatives of $q$ at $t_0$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 18 '15 at 22:44









    Qiaochu YuanQiaochu Yuan

    281k32592938




    281k32592938








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This makes a lot of sense. $F$ is a function on certain values, since it needs to be a function of all the coordinates which correspond to the system's degrees of freedom. But say $qin A$ and $dot qin B$ and the function $dot q(q(t))=frac{dq}{dt}$ (evaluated at given $t$) is a bijection between $A$ and $B$. Then the value of $q$ at $t_0$ gives me the value of $dot q$ at $t_0$, so it would be fine in this special case to consider $F(q,t)=mddot q$?
      $endgroup$
      – ok_
      Jan 19 '15 at 3:31
















    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This makes a lot of sense. $F$ is a function on certain values, since it needs to be a function of all the coordinates which correspond to the system's degrees of freedom. But say $qin A$ and $dot qin B$ and the function $dot q(q(t))=frac{dq}{dt}$ (evaluated at given $t$) is a bijection between $A$ and $B$. Then the value of $q$ at $t_0$ gives me the value of $dot q$ at $t_0$, so it would be fine in this special case to consider $F(q,t)=mddot q$?
      $endgroup$
      – ok_
      Jan 19 '15 at 3:31










    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    This makes a lot of sense. $F$ is a function on certain values, since it needs to be a function of all the coordinates which correspond to the system's degrees of freedom. But say $qin A$ and $dot qin B$ and the function $dot q(q(t))=frac{dq}{dt}$ (evaluated at given $t$) is a bijection between $A$ and $B$. Then the value of $q$ at $t_0$ gives me the value of $dot q$ at $t_0$, so it would be fine in this special case to consider $F(q,t)=mddot q$?
    $endgroup$
    – ok_
    Jan 19 '15 at 3:31






    $begingroup$
    This makes a lot of sense. $F$ is a function on certain values, since it needs to be a function of all the coordinates which correspond to the system's degrees of freedom. But say $qin A$ and $dot qin B$ and the function $dot q(q(t))=frac{dq}{dt}$ (evaluated at given $t$) is a bijection between $A$ and $B$. Then the value of $q$ at $t_0$ gives me the value of $dot q$ at $t_0$, so it would be fine in this special case to consider $F(q,t)=mddot q$?
    $endgroup$
    – ok_
    Jan 19 '15 at 3:31













    1












    $begingroup$

    Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian mechanics (specifically d'Alembert's principle of virtual works), i.e. sets of second order ODEs. Under some regularity conditions, these second order ODEs can be turned into a system of first order ODEs, where the $q$s and the $dot q$s are independent variables. Hence if you want to retrieve the equations of motion out of a Lagrangian (or an action principle), this must depend on the $q$s and the $dot q$s. Observe that the action integral itself is assumed to depend on the trajectory alone, i.e.



    $$S[q] = int_a^b L(q(t),dot q(t), t)text dt.$$



    Hamilton noticed that there is a standard procedure for passing from Euler-Lagrange equations, which are the second order ODEs of Newtonian mechanics, to the equivalent system of first order ODEs. For this to work, the condition is that the Hessian of $L$ w.r.t. the $dot q$ should not vanish (so it must be positive definite on the domain of interest, i.e $L$ is concave w.r.t. the $dot q$s). Such equations are the Hamilton equation coming from the Hamiltonian, which is the Legendre transform of $L$ w.r.t. the generalised velocities.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian mechanics (specifically d'Alembert's principle of virtual works), i.e. sets of second order ODEs. Under some regularity conditions, these second order ODEs can be turned into a system of first order ODEs, where the $q$s and the $dot q$s are independent variables. Hence if you want to retrieve the equations of motion out of a Lagrangian (or an action principle), this must depend on the $q$s and the $dot q$s. Observe that the action integral itself is assumed to depend on the trajectory alone, i.e.



      $$S[q] = int_a^b L(q(t),dot q(t), t)text dt.$$



      Hamilton noticed that there is a standard procedure for passing from Euler-Lagrange equations, which are the second order ODEs of Newtonian mechanics, to the equivalent system of first order ODEs. For this to work, the condition is that the Hessian of $L$ w.r.t. the $dot q$ should not vanish (so it must be positive definite on the domain of interest, i.e $L$ is concave w.r.t. the $dot q$s). Such equations are the Hamilton equation coming from the Hamiltonian, which is the Legendre transform of $L$ w.r.t. the generalised velocities.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian mechanics (specifically d'Alembert's principle of virtual works), i.e. sets of second order ODEs. Under some regularity conditions, these second order ODEs can be turned into a system of first order ODEs, where the $q$s and the $dot q$s are independent variables. Hence if you want to retrieve the equations of motion out of a Lagrangian (or an action principle), this must depend on the $q$s and the $dot q$s. Observe that the action integral itself is assumed to depend on the trajectory alone, i.e.



        $$S[q] = int_a^b L(q(t),dot q(t), t)text dt.$$



        Hamilton noticed that there is a standard procedure for passing from Euler-Lagrange equations, which are the second order ODEs of Newtonian mechanics, to the equivalent system of first order ODEs. For this to work, the condition is that the Hessian of $L$ w.r.t. the $dot q$ should not vanish (so it must be positive definite on the domain of interest, i.e $L$ is concave w.r.t. the $dot q$s). Such equations are the Hamilton equation coming from the Hamiltonian, which is the Legendre transform of $L$ w.r.t. the generalised velocities.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian mechanics (specifically d'Alembert's principle of virtual works), i.e. sets of second order ODEs. Under some regularity conditions, these second order ODEs can be turned into a system of first order ODEs, where the $q$s and the $dot q$s are independent variables. Hence if you want to retrieve the equations of motion out of a Lagrangian (or an action principle), this must depend on the $q$s and the $dot q$s. Observe that the action integral itself is assumed to depend on the trajectory alone, i.e.



        $$S[q] = int_a^b L(q(t),dot q(t), t)text dt.$$



        Hamilton noticed that there is a standard procedure for passing from Euler-Lagrange equations, which are the second order ODEs of Newtonian mechanics, to the equivalent system of first order ODEs. For this to work, the condition is that the Hessian of $L$ w.r.t. the $dot q$ should not vanish (so it must be positive definite on the domain of interest, i.e $L$ is concave w.r.t. the $dot q$s). Such equations are the Hamilton equation coming from the Hamiltonian, which is the Legendre transform of $L$ w.r.t. the generalised velocities.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 19 '15 at 11:25









        Phoenix87Phoenix87

        555410




        555410






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1109623%2fwhy-f-mathbf-q-dot-mathbf-q-t-and-not-f-mathbf-q-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Nidaros erkebispedøme

            Birsay

            Was Woodrow Wilson really a Liberal?Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?Founding Fathers...