How did we arrive to Hamilton's principle ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Hamilton's principle and its relationship to Newton's laws and Lagrangian mechanics. Participants explore whether Hamilton's principle is merely a reformulation of existing concepts or if it introduces new ideas. The conversation also touches on generalized forces and their role in the context of Hamilton's principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Hamilton's principle can be derived from Newton's laws with additional assumptions about the mechanical system, particularly regarding holonomic constraints.
  • Others assert that the principle of stationary action is typically treated as an axiom, with its validity checked through the derivation of correct equations of motion.
  • A participant explains that Hamilton's equations can be derived from the definition of the Hamiltonian as a Legendre transformation, indicating a mathematical relationship between these concepts.
  • There is a question about the nature of generalized forces, with one participant noting that they function similarly to coordinates and velocities, but are often disregarded in cases involving conservative forces.
  • One participant expresses confusion about generalized forces and requests clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the derivation and interpretation of Hamilton's principle. While some believe it can be derived from Newton's laws, others emphasize its axiomatic nature. The discussion remains unresolved on the exact relationship between these principles.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on assumptions about constraints (holonomic vs. non-holonomic) and the challenges posed by non-conservative forces, which complicate the application of Hamilton's principle.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in classical mechanics, variational principles, and the foundational aspects of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations may find this discussion relevant.

Nikitin
Messages
734
Reaction score
27
Hi. The Lagrange equations can be derived simply by using Newton's laws and defining potential, work and kinetic energy. So that's just a mathematical reformulation of known results.

Is it the same with Hamilton's principle? Is the concept of "action" and it being stationary just another mathematical reformulation from Newton's laws, or is it something else? Because Hamilton's principle leads to the Langrange equations just the same as Newton's laws.

My professor did not discuss this. He simply presented Hamilton's principle as a postulate and left it at that.

PS: What is up with this "generalized force" thing? I don't exactly understand what that is all about. Would appreciate it if somebody could explain briefly.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The principle of stationary action (in the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian form) is usually taken as an axiom. You can only constantly check its validity by producing the correct equations of motion.
 
Hamiltons equations follow from the definition of the hamiltonian as a Legendre transformation ##H = \dot qp - L##
If you then write down the differential ##dH## you instantly get hamiltons out of it (try it!).

Generalised forces work just the same as coordinates, velocities, moment etc the force along your coordinate vector. It's just that the only forces we care about the non-conservative ones that you can't account for as energy so in a lot of cases you just don't care about the force part at all.
So
\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{\partial L}{d\dot q_i}) - \frac{\partial L}{dq_i} = F_i
would reduce to a 0 in the right part if we only have conservative forces.
 
Nikitin said:
Hi. The Lagrange equations can be derived simply by using Newton's laws and defining potential, work and kinetic energy. So that's just a mathematical reformulation of known results.

Is it the same with Hamilton's principle? Is the concept of "action" and it being stationary just another mathematical reformulation from Newton's laws, or is it something else? Because Hamilton's principle leads to the Langrange equations just the same as Newton's laws.

My professor did not discuss this. He simply presented Hamilton's principle as a postulate and left it at that.

PS: What is up with this "generalized force" thing? I don't exactly understand what that is all about. Would appreciate it if somebody could explain briefly.

Hamilton's principle (principle of stationary action) can be derived from Newton's laws and some additional assumptions about the mechanical system. The important one that comes to mind is that all constraints have to be holonomic. If the mechanical problem has non-holonomic constraints (e.g. sphere rolling on ground with no slipping), usual Hamilton's principle does not work. Also if friction dissipates mechanical energy Hamilton's principle is hard to formulate and I think it is little used there.

Check the book H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics for exposé of Hamilton's principle. There is also book by C. Lanczos, The Variational Principles of Mechanics which might help.
 
allright. thanks guys
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
981