I Does the Principle of Least Action Have a Physical Meaning?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the differing opinions regarding the physical meaning of the Principle of Least Action (PLA), with some physicists viewing it as fundamental while others see it as merely a mathematical tool. The lack of consensus appears to stem from varying interpretations of what constitutes "physical meaning." Examples, such as the behavior of photons during refraction, illustrate the debate over whether the PLA is inherently physical or just a mathematical outcome. Some participants argue that the extensive experimental support for PLA suggests it has physical significance, while others maintain that its application can be purely mathematical. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities and nuances in understanding the role of PLA in physics.
  • #91
Mister T said:
Being fundamental and being physically meaningful are two different things. Do you have a reference for a claim that the PLA is not physically meaningful?

Back in post #21 there is a link to a paper that points out that "the principle of least action" is an ambiguous phrase. The paper distinguishes two versions of the principle of least action. The two versions have different physical meanings. So, yes, there is a source that says the PLA "is not phyically meaningful" in the sense that it does not have a unique physical interpretation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
19K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
386
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K