Physical interpretation of the Hamiltonian

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the use of the Hamiltonian, defined as L=T-V, in the context of the Euler-Lagrange equation, emphasizing that the Lagrangian is indeed T-V. The relationship between the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian is highlighted as closely intertwined. Participants reference various articles and discussions that aim to clarify the physical interpretation of the Lagrangian and the principle of least action. Notably, Feynman's path-integral formulation is mentioned as providing an intuitive explanation for Hamilton's principle, particularly in the classical limit. Overall, the conversation underscores the need for innovative interpretations of these foundational concepts in physics.
zush
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
When dealing with the Euler-Lagrange equation in a physical setting, one usually uses the Hamiltonian L=T-V as the value to be extremized. What is the physical interpretation of the extremizing of this value?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zush said:
When dealing with the Euler-Lagrange equation in a physical setting, one usually uses the Hamiltonian L=T-V as the value to be extremized. What is the physical interpretation of the extremizing of this value?

Actually, (T - V) is the Lagrangian.
It doesn't matter all that much, the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are very closely related

As to the Lagrangian (T - V), Here is what I replied in a thread from january 2010:

Try reading the article "www.eftaylor.com/pub/ActionFromConsEnergy.pdf"[/URL][/u] written by Jozef Hanc and Edwin F. Taylor.
They're putting in a serious effort to build up to an intuitive understanding of the principle.
There's more where that came from, the authors have collaborated on several other articles. Links to those articles are available on the [u][PLAIN]http://eftaylor.com/leastaction.html"
page on Taylor's website.



In november 2010 I posted a discussion in a thread where someone asked https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=443711"
The physical interpretation stuff is in post #10 of that thread.

I believe that discussion is good, but of course you must make your own judgement.
An expanded version of that discussion is in the http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/least_action.php" article on my own website.

When it comes to physical interpretation of the Lagrangian there are very few sources. I get the impression that textbook authors copy what earlier authors have written. That's not necessarily bad, but there's no innovation, I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Although I learned yesterday, that it is not allowed to answer with quantum theory in the classical-physics section of this forum, I cannot resist to mention that one possible very intuitive "explanation" for the validity of Hamilton's principle comes from Feynman's path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Here, the classical limit is given by the stationary-phase approximation of the path integral. I.e., if the action becomes large compared to \hbar, the path integral is well approximated by consdering only the trajectories in phase space, which are very close to the classical trajectory.

The Lagrangian formulation follows then for a often applicable special case, where the Hamiltonian is quadratic in the canonical momenta with space independent coefficients.
 
thank you I found what I was looking for
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top