How does classical mechanics change if motion was not infinitely differentiable?

AI Thread Summary
Classical mechanics traditionally assumes motion is infinitely differentiable, but it can still function under the condition that motion is only twice differentiable. The fundamental principles of Newtonian, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, and Vakonomic mechanics remain applicable even when acceleration exists but jerk does not. The discussion raises the question of whether major changes would occur in classical mechanics under this assumption, with some suggesting that significant alterations are unlikely. The Langevin equation, which describes Brownian motion, supports the idea that reasonable physics can still emerge from less stringent differentiability conditions. Overall, the consensus leans towards minimal impact on classical mechanics from this change in assumptions.
Pinu7
Messages
275
Reaction score
5
Many "theoretical mechanicians" seem to awesome that motion is a {C^\infty } function(at least that is how I learned it). However, it seems like the postulates of Newtonian/Lagrangian/Hamiltonian/Vakonomic mechanics seem to "work" in the general case where only the motion is a {C^2}(ie the acceleration always exists, but the jerk does not).

My question is how classical mechanics would change if we assume the general case where the motion of a particle is only guaranteed to be twice differentiable? Are there any MAJOR changes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Good question. My guess is 'no'. The Langevin equation (Brownian motion) results in perfectly reasonable physics.
 
Are you talking about "Achilles and the tortoise" and Zeno's paradoxes?
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top