Hamilton's principle and Lagrangian mechanics

AI Thread Summary
Lagrange's equations, derived from his work in analytical mechanics, do not explicitly integrate the Lagrangian over time, a concept later formalized by Hamilton in the nineteenth century. While Lagrange utilized principles of least action, he focused on the viz viva (mv²) rather than the Lagrangian itself, which he developed. Maupertuis's action, which predates both Lagrange and Hamilton, differs conceptually from the action derived from the Lagrangian. The historical progression shows that Euler contributed significantly to the calculus of variations, influencing Lagrange's work. Hamilton's approach aimed to simplify the equations of motion, leading to first-order differential equations, which marked a significant development in mechanics.
alexepascual
Messages
371
Reaction score
1
I have seen that Lagrange's equations are some times derived from Hamilton's principle. This makes me wonder what the historical development of these ideas was. Hamilton lived in the nineteenth century while Lagrange lived in the eighteenth century.
The principle that minimizes the integral of the Lagrangian over time is called "Hamilton's principle", so I would assume that Lagrange had not thought about this. But he did have his "Lagrangian" (even if he didn't call it by that name). I would assume that Lagrange's equations were developed by Lagrange, and Lagrange's equations use the Lagrangian.
So, if Lagrange was using the Lagrangian, how come he didn't think of integrating the Lagrangian over time?.
Some place I read that the "Lagrangian approach" uses the integral of the viz viva (mv2) over time. This would be equivalent to the integral of p*ds (which is the Maupertuisian action).
So, this story sounds a little strange. Lagrange uses a principle of least action which uses mv2 as it's integrand instead of using the Lagrangian (which he invented). Then comes Hamilton who thinks up a new "least action principle" which uses the Lagrangian as argument.
Am I missing something here, or am I wrong about some of what I just said?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I would *guess* that Lagrange got as far as Lagrange's equations, without realizing that his equations minimized a variational integral. But I don't know the actual history. One approach that leads to Lagrange's equations is the "virtual work" approach.
 
History of the Lagrangian:
Maupertuis proposed the forerunner of the principle of least action.
Daniel Bernoulli brought it to the attention of Euler.
Euler, fascinated with the mathematical problem, created the Calculus of Variations and derived the Euler equations form the minimized (actually stationized) action.
Lagrange used Euler's result, formed the general Lagrangean representation of the action and used this, plus his virtual work idea, to create the science of analytical mechanics in his Mechanique Analitique.

Hamilton's problem with Lagrange's method was that the Euler equations in it came out as second order differential equations. Hamilton sought for an approach that would yield first degree equations, and found it.
 
Thanks for your responses guys and sorry for the delay. I had forgotten to subscrive to this thread.
I still have some questions.
If you translate Maupertui's action S=integral{p ds} into energy, you get an integral of 2T over time, not the Lagrangian. So it looks like Maupertui's action is quite different conceptually form the Action you get from the Lagrangian.
From what I remember, the action obtained by integrating the Lagrangian is known as Hamiltonian Action, which would give the hint that Lagrange was not the one who came up with it.
My questions are:
(1) Did Lagrange at any point integrate the Lagrangian over time and talk about minimizing that or was Hamilton the first one to do it?
(2) Was Lagrange who discovered the concept of virtual work or was it D'alembert (or someone before him)?
Thanks again,
Alex
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top