1
$\begingroup$

In a Classical Mechanics book I found the assumption that for an arbitrary particle with constant mass in the Real line $dT/dx=0$, with T the Kinetic Energy i.e. $T=(m·\dot x^2)/2$

My hypothesis is that the author used the following 'identity' $$d\dot x^2/dx=0$$

But solving the differential equation (correct me if I am wrong please) I get to $\dot x=f(t)$

Which I think could wrong because it could be that $\dot x=f(x,t)$ couldn't it?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Could it be saying the particle is at constant velocity? Without the "dot" superscript, it may be no velocity (momentum mv). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27, 2020 at 14:16

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

In classical Mechanics, where we work with Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}(q,\dot{q},t)$ which is a function of generalizing coordinate and velocity, We take velocity and coordinate to be independent variables. Why? Look here.

So kinetic energy which is $$T=f(\dot{q})$$

When we take its derivative with respect to $q$, it's turn out to be zero. $$\frac{dT}{dq}=0$$

As it doesn't depend on the generalized coordinate.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Nice answer, I believe this reasoning holds true even if $T$ allows for relativistic effects $\endgroup$
    – TheVal
    Commented Nov 27, 2020 at 14:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.