Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with classical-mechanics
Search options not deleted
user 266224
Classical mechanics discusses the behaviour of macroscopic bodies under the influence of forces (without necessarily specifying the origin of these forces). If it's possible, USE MORE SPECIFIC TAGS like [newtonian-mechanics], [lagrangian-formalism], and [hamiltonian-formalism].
13
votes
3
answers
2k
views
In a Lagrangian, why can't we replace kinetic energy by total energy minus potential energy?
TL;DR: Why can't we write $\mathcal{L} = E - 2V$ where $E = T + V = $ Total Energy?
Let us consider the case of a particle in a gravitational field starting from rest.
Initially, Kinetic energy $T$ is …
- 255