Principle of Least Action - not always valid?

Click For Summary
The Principle of Least Action is only valid for small segments of a system's path in phase space, as noted in Landau & Lifgarbagez Mechanics. This raises questions about the validity of deriving Lagrange's Equation, particularly regarding the nature of extremal action—whether it represents a minimum, maximum, or saddle point. The discussion highlights that while the equation typically provides accurate results, the term "least action" can be misleading. It emphasizes the need to analyze additional quantities to determine the true nature of the extremal action. Overall, understanding these nuances is crucial for applying the principle effectively in various contexts.
Master J
Messages
219
Reaction score
0
It is stated in Landau & Lifgarbagez Mechanics that the Principle of Least Action is not always valid for the entire path of a system in phase space, but only for a sufficiently small segment of the path.

Can anyone expand on this?

How can we be sure that when we derive Lagrange's Equation that the principle is valid?

I guess the statement has slightly confused me - what are the consequences of this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Basically, the equation gives a geodesic in some space. On a sphere, the great circles are geodesic. But between two points, you can go either direction on the geodesic, the short way or the long way. But between any two nearby points on the geodesic, it is always the short way. So some other quantity needs to be examined to figure out whether the extremal of the action we get is a minimum, saddle point, or maximum. The equation is almost always right, just the name "least action" isn't. Some specific examples are given by:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap6.pdf
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/Gray&TaylorAJP.pdf

The conditions under which differential equations can be derived from a variational principle are discussed by http://www.dic.univ.trieste.it/perspage/tonti/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3177
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K