Timeline for What is the domain of the action in classical mechanics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 23, 2020 at 13:26 | history | edited | Adomas Baliuka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed error
|
| Dec 17, 2020 at 20:30 | comment | added | Philippe Malot | Unless $a=b=0$, the set of $C^1$ functions $x$ on $[\alpha,\beta]$ such that $x(\alpha)=a$ and $x(\beta)=b$ is not a vector space. | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 9:22 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | Well, making the path integral rigorous is a wholly different cam of worms...the individual "parts" of the measure the physicist writes down don't actually exist in a straightforward manner, but at least in QM (not QFT), the Wiener measure provides a formalization. | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 9:18 | comment | added | Adomas Baliuka | The piecewise case certainly does come up. For example when one considers idealized singular potentials, such as for describing collisions or in applications to ray optics. Also there must be some reason why the function space is never specified in physics literature? I was hoping, someone would know a reason, other than perhaps there being no real reason to care about this in applications. Also the main motivation for the question seems to be path integrals and the above doesn't answer this. | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 9:00 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | How is this "way too restrictive" for most applications? Can you give an example in classical non-field mechanics where you'd need more? | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 0:38 | vote | accept | Nate Stemen | ||
| Feb 22, 2017 at 0:38 | vote | accept | Nate Stemen | ||
| Feb 22, 2017 at 0:38 | |||||
| Feb 21, 2017 at 22:40 | history | edited | Adomas Baliuka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 47 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2017 at 22:35 | history | answered | Adomas Baliuka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |