Hamilton's principle/Explainers/More than one variable - Revision history

PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

2026-10-15T19:30:20Z

Published from the Principia Machina source

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 15 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:More than one variable}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:More than one variable}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several dependent variables\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several independent variables}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several dependent variables\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several independent variables}}
			{{Hamilton's principle map}}

	This page explains how the method handles systems with many moving parts. It uses		This page explains how the method handles systems with many moving parts. It uses

BFP Rauch: Pipe internal links so cross-references read as titles, not paths

2026-09-16T04:58:38Z

Pipe internal links so cross-references read as titles, not paths

BFP Rauch: Add DISPLAYTITLE: title the page by its section rather than its path

2026-09-16T04:46:54Z

Add DISPLAYTITLE: title the page by its section rather than its path

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:46, 16 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{DISPLAYTITLE:More than one variable}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several dependent variables\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several independent variables}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several dependent variables\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several independent variables}}

Line 135:		Line 136:
	deferring: when is a stationary path actually the best one? That is at		deferring: when is a stationary path actually the best one? That is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum]].

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

2026-09-09T05:05:16Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:05, 9 September 2026
(No difference)

hamiltons-principle>HPVBuild: Initial import of B-04

2026-09-08T12:00:00Z

Initial import of B-04

New page

{{Technical|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several dependent variables|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/Several independent variables}}

This page explains how the method handles systems with many moving parts. It uses
no mathematics. The technical pages it goes with are named above.

== One thing moving is not enough ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-31.png|thumb|right|400px|A bead chain approaching a continuous string.]]

So far the volume has followed a single path: one thing, moving.

Real systems are not like that. A double pendulum has two arms. A bridge has
millions of parts. The air in a room has more moving pieces than anyone would
want to count.

The method extends to all of these. What follows is how, and where the extension
needs care.

== Many parts, one at a time ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-44.png|thumb|right|400px|Varying one degree of freedom at a time.]]

Suppose a system has three moving parts. Write down the cost rule for the whole
system, taking all three into account.

Now nudge the '''first''' part only, leaving the other two exactly as they were.
Run the same argument as before. You get a rule for the first part.

Now do the same for the second part, and the third.

You end up with one rule per part. Nothing new had to be invented. The trick of
nudging one thing at a time did all the work.

== The catch ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-56.png|thumb|right|400px|From one independent variable to several.]]

That trick relies on something, and it is worth stating plainly.

'''You have to be able to nudge one part without disturbing the others.'''

Often you cannot.

Think of a pendulum: a weight on a rigid rod. Describe it by the weight's sideways
and vertical positions. Those two are not free of each other. The rod has a fixed
length, so moving the weight sideways forces it to move vertically as well.

Nudge one and the other has to follow. The trick fails.

There are two ways out, and both are useful.

'''Choose better descriptions.''' Instead of two positions, use the single angle
the rod makes with the vertical. Now there is one quantity, it is free to take any
value, and the difficulty vanishes.

'''Keep the description and pay for it.''' Sometimes the tidy description does not
exist, or you want information the tidy one throws away. In the pendulum case, the
angle description never tells you the '''tension''' in the rod. If that is what
you are after — and an engineer usually is — you need the other method.

That other method is at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Constraints]] and
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Multipliers]].

== Free choice of description ==

One of the real advantages of this whole approach shows up here.

The method does not care how you describe the system. Angles, distances, heights,
anything convenient. Write down the cost rule in whatever terms suit the problem
and turn the handle.

Doing the same thing with forces is much harder. Forces are arrows in space, and
converting arrows into angles is fiddly and error-prone. The cost rule is a single
number, and numbers do not have directions to keep track of.

For a spinning top, or a robot arm, or a chain of linked rods, this is the
difference between a manageable problem and an unmanageable one.

== From many parts to a continuous thing ==

Now push the idea as far as it goes.

A guitar string is not three parts or a hundred parts. Every point along it can
move. There are infinitely many moving parts.

The method still works, and the way to see it is to sneak up on the answer.

Replace the string with a row of beads on a light thread. That is an ordinary
system with a definite number of parts, and everything above applies. Now use more
beads, and lighter ones. Then more still.

As the beads get closer together, the answer settles down to something. That
something is the behaviour of the real string.

The result is the '''wave equation''', and it describes waves running along the
string at a fixed speed. Sound, light and ripples on water are all governed by
close relatives of it.

Doing the calculation this way is worth the trouble. You could simply assert a
cost rule for the string and turn the handle. Sneaking up on it from the beads
shows that the rule you assert is the right one, rather than asking the reader to
take it on trust.

== Fields ==

When every point of something can move, physics calls that thing a '''field'''.

A string is a field along a line. The air in a room is a field in space. The
electric and magnetic fields are fields in space, and so is the gravitational
field.

Everything on this page applies to all of them. Write down a cost rule for the
field, nudge it, and out come the equations. That is how modern physics is
written, and it is explained at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Fields]].

== One thing that changes ==

Moving to fields changes conservation laws in a way worth knowing.

For a few moving parts, "energy is conserved" means a number stays the same.

For a field it means something stronger and more useful. Energy cannot vanish here
and appear over there. It has to '''flow''' — leaving one region by crossing the
boundary and entering the next.

That is why you can talk about energy travelling along a wire, or sunlight
carrying energy across space. The conservation law is local, and locality is what
makes it possible for energy to have a route.

== Where to go next ==

The machinery is now complete. The next question is the one the volume has been
deferring: when is a stationary path actually the best one? That is at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 16 September 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:

	That other method is at		That other method is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Constraints]] and		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Constraints\|Constraints]] and
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Multipliers]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Multipliers\|Multipliers]].

	== Free choice of description ==		== Free choice of description ==
Line 115:		Line 115:
	field, nudge it, and out come the equations. That is how modern physics is		field, nudge it, and out come the equations. That is how modern physics is
	written, and it is explained at		written, and it is explained at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Fields]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Fields\|Fields]].

	== One thing that changes ==		== One thing that changes ==
Line 135:		Line 135:
	The machinery is now complete. The next question is the one the volume has been		The machinery is now complete. The next question is the one the volume has been
	deferring: when is a stationary path actually the best one? That is at		deferring: when is a stationary path actually the best one? That is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum\|Is it really a minimum]].