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 $ddot x-3dot x+2x=e^tsin(t)$
$begingroup$
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.
ordinary-differential-equations physics classical-mechanics
$endgroup$
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
ordinary-differential-equations physics classical-mechanics
$endgroup$
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
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
ordinary-differential-equations physics classical-mechanics
$endgroup$
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
ordinary-differential-equations physics classical-mechanics
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
|
show 9 more comments
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
|
show 9 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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 $t_0$.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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 $t_0$.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $t_0$.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $t_0$.
$endgroup$
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 $t_0$.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered Jan 19 '15 at 11:25
Phoenix87Phoenix87
555410
555410
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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