Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dylan Black's avatar

I think it’s worth noting that, like with a lot of things, calculus of variations requires defining a set of boundary conditions on which to derive the Euler Lagrange equations. Donald E Kirk’s Optimal Control theory has the best exploration of the consequences of this for various derived optimization problems. But the Newtonian style formulation is a differential equation, where the boundary conditions are NOT inherent in the expression of the equations of motion, they are ad hoc and specific to the particular problem.

What I’m trying to say is that the teleological approach of Lagrangian mechanics already assumes a fixed beginning and end, where the Newtonian formulation does not. Lots of physical laws do this, Maxwell’s equations have an integral and a differential form, where the integral equations (a global, teleological form) have the boundary conditions embedded in them, and the differential ones (a local, more obviously causal form) do not. So it is circular reasoning to look at the Lagrangian, global formulation and discover that this implies a fixed endpoint, this is in fact an assumption of the method, not a consequence.

Expand full comment
George H.'s avatar

OMG Conan and physics. I'm now an unpaid subscriber*, so a shout out to the least action principle in the Feynman lectures. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html

*which kinda stinks, I don't have enough income to support all the substacks I read, and I hate subscribing 'cause it means more stuff in my email inbox. Idea for substack, charge me ~$100 a year and I get to 'support' ~10 substacks, and also not get any emails, maybe one summary email/ week

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts