Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Reading a curve two ways - Revision history

PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

2026-10-15T19:30:21Z

Published from the Principia Machina source

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 15 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Reading a curve two ways}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Reading a curve two ways}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Legendre transform}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Legendre transform}}
			{{Hamilton's principle map}}

	This page explains a change of viewpoint that reorganises the whole subject. It		This page explains a change of viewpoint that reorganises the whole subject. It

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

2026-09-16T04:58:50Z

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

2026-09-16T04:46:58Z

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:Reading a curve two ways}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Legendre transform}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Legendre transform}}

Line 121:		Line 122:
	it is at		it is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/The Hamiltonian]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/The Hamiltonian]].

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

2026-09-09T05:05:17Z

1 revision imported

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

hamiltons-principle>HPVBuild: Initial import of B-11

2026-09-08T12:00:00Z

Initial import of B-11

New page

{{Technical|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Legendre transform}}

This page explains a change of viewpoint that reorganises the whole subject. It
uses no mathematics. The technical page it goes with is named above.

== Describing a curve without listing its points ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-10.png|thumb|right|400px|The Legendre transform as a tangent-line description.]]

Draw a curve on paper. How would you describe it to someone who cannot see it?

The obvious way is to list its points. At this position it is this high, and so
on.

There is a second way, and it is not obvious. Instead of listing points, list the
'''straight lines that just touch it'''.

For each possible slope, there is one line of that slope that touches the curve
and does not cross it. Say where that line sits. Do this for every slope.

A curve is completely determined by the family of lines that graze it. So the two
descriptions carry the same information, and either can be recovered from the
other.

Swapping between them is called the '''Legendre transform'''.

== Why bother ==

Because sometimes the second description is the useful one.

Think about what you know and what you want. Sometimes you know '''where''' you
are and want to know how steeply things are changing. Sometimes you know how
steeply things are changing and want to know where you are.

The transform swaps which of these is the input.

In mechanics the swap is between '''speed''' and '''momentum'''. The usual
description takes speed as the basic quantity. The transform gives one where
momentum is basic instead.

That sounds like relabelling. It is not, and the next page shows what it buys.

== The condition that makes it work ==

There is one requirement, and it is easy to state.

'''The curve must bend one way only.'''

If it bends consistently — always curving upward, say — then each slope touches it
at exactly one place, and the description by tangent lines is unambiguous.

If the curve wiggles, several places have the same slope. Asked to name the point
with that slope, you cannot answer. The second description fails.

This turns out to be the '''same condition''' that appeared on
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum]] as the local test:
wobbling must not pay. The same requirement shows up twice, in two subjects, for
two apparently different reasons.

That is worth noticing. When one condition keeps reappearing, it is usually
telling you something structural rather than technical.

== Where it fails, and why that matters ==

The requirement is not always met, and the failures are not obscure corner cases.
They are some of the most important theories in physics.

Electromagnetism fails it. So does general relativity.

In both cases the reason is the same, and it is respectable: the description
contains '''more quantities than the physics needs'''. Different descriptions
represent the same physical situation. So knowing the physics does not pin down
the description, and the transform has nothing unique to return.

That redundancy is not a defect. It is what physicists call '''gauge freedom''',
and it is treated at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/When symmetry is local]].

For now the point is that the failure of a mathematical transform and the presence
of a physical redundancy are the same fact. Meeting the failure tells you
something true about the theory.

== The same idea in other places ==

The transform is not confined to mechanics. Once you know its shape you see it in
several subjects.

'''Thermodynamics''' uses it constantly. The different energy quantities in a
textbook — internal energy, free energy, enthalpy — are transforms of one another,
swapping which quantity is treated as the input. An engineer working at fixed
temperature wants a different one from an engineer working at fixed heat content,
and the transform gets between them.

'''Economics''' uses it, though rarely by name. Describing a producer by what
they make, or by the prices they face, are two descriptions of one situation. The
transform swaps between quantity and price.

The recurring pattern is: '''when two quantities pair up so that knowing one
determines the other, you can build your description on either.''' Which you pick
should depend on which you actually measure.

== A picture to keep ==

Here is the version worth remembering.

Think of a hill. You can describe it by giving the height at every location. Or
you can describe it by giving, for each possible slope, the flattest position
where the ground tilts that steeply.

Both descriptions contain the hill. Neither is more fundamental.

The first is natural if you are standing on it. The second is natural if you are
choosing a route by how steep you are willing to walk.

Physics has both descriptions of mechanics, for the same reason. Which is better
depends on the question.

== Where to go next ==

Applying the swap to mechanics produces a reformulation with real advantages, and
it is at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/The Hamiltonian]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 16 September 2026
Line 55:		Line 55:

	This turns out to be the '''same condition''' that appeared on		This turns out to be the '''same condition''' that appeared on
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum]] as the local test:		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum\|Is it really a minimum]] as the local test:
	wobbling must not pay. The same requirement shows up twice, in two subjects, for		wobbling must not pay. The same requirement shows up twice, in two subjects, for
	two apparently different reasons.		two apparently different reasons.
Line 76:		Line 76:
	That redundancy is not a defect. It is what physicists call '''gauge freedom''',		That redundancy is not a defect. It is what physicists call '''gauge freedom''',
	and it is treated at		and it is treated at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/When symmetry is local]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/When symmetry is local\|When symmetry is local]].

	For now the point is that the failure of a mathematical transform and the presence		For now the point is that the failure of a mathematical transform and the presence
Line 121:		Line 121:
	Applying the swap to mechanics produces a reformulation with real advantages, and		Applying the swap to mechanics produces a reformulation with real advantages, and
	it is at		it is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/The Hamiltonian]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/The Hamiltonian\|the Hamiltonian]].