Hamilton's principle/Explainers/What the Euler-Lagrange equation says - Revision history

PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

2026-10-15T19:30:24Z

Published from the Principia Machina source

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 15 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:What the Euler-Lagrange equation says}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:What the Euler-Lagrange equation says}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The fundamental lemma\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Euler-Lagrange equation}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The fundamental lemma\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Euler-Lagrange equation}}
			{{Hamilton's principle map}}

	This page explains the central equation of the subject. It uses no mathematics.		This page explains the central equation of the subject. It uses no mathematics.

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

2026-09-16T04:58:34Z

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

2026-09-16T04:46:53Z

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:What the Euler-Lagrange equation says}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The fundamental lemma\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Euler-Lagrange equation}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The fundamental lemma\|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Euler-Lagrange equation}}

Line 131:		Line 132:
	That is at		That is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/More than one variable]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/More than one variable]].

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-02

2026-09-08T12:00:00Z

Initial import of B-02

New page

{{Technical|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The fundamental lemma|Hamilton's principle/Mathematics/The Euler-Lagrange equation}}

This page explains the central equation of the subject. It uses no mathematics.
The technical pages it goes with are named above.

== The problem so far ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-03.png|thumb|right|400px|A localised test function.]]

[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths]] set things up. You have a rule
that gives a number for any whole path. You want the path where that number stops
changing when you nudge it.

Turning the dial and watching the number tells you something, but it tells you
something about the '''whole path at once'''. It says the total stops changing.

That is not yet useful. What you want is a rule the path obeys at '''each
point''', so you can work the path out step by step. Getting from the first kind
of statement to the second is the job of this page.

== Adding up to zero ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-39.png|thumb|right|400px|The two rates the Euler-Lagrange equation balances.]]

Here is the difficulty, in everyday terms.

Suppose a shop's takings for the day come to exactly zero. There are two possible
reasons.

Every single sale might have been for nothing. Or there might have been large
sales and large refunds that happened to cancel out.

The first tells you a lot. The second tells you almost nothing.

When physics says the total change in the number is zero, it faces the same
ambiguity. Perhaps nothing is changing anywhere along the path. Or perhaps changes
in one stretch are being cancelled by opposite changes elsewhere.

To get a rule at each point, the second possibility has to be ruled out.

== Ruling out the cancellation ==

The way to rule it out is to be greedy about the comparisons.

Remember that you get to choose the nudge. Any smooth nudge is allowed, as long as
it is zero at both ends.

So choose a nudge that is zero everywhere except in one small stretch. This is
like poking the path with a finger in one place and leaving the rest alone.

If something were wrong in that stretch, this nudge would change the total. There
is no other stretch involved, so nothing can cancel it.

Now do the same thing everywhere. Poke every stretch of the path in turn. If the
total refuses to change no matter where you poke, then nothing is wrong anywhere.

That argument, done properly, is what mathematicians call the '''fundamental
lemma'''. It has a long name and a simple idea: if you can test anywhere, and
every test comes back clean, then everything is clean.

The greediness is essential. If you were only allowed a few fixed nudges, the
cancellation dodge would still be open.

== The rule at each point ==

Once the cancellation is ruled out, a rule at each point drops out. It is called
the '''Euler-Lagrange equation''', after the two people who found it in the
1740s and 1750s.

In words, and with no symbols, it says this.

'''At every moment, the rate at which the path's cost changes because of where you
are must be exactly balanced by the rate at which it changes because of how fast
you are going.'''

For a moving object that turns out to be Newton's second law: force equals mass
times acceleration. The two statements say the same thing.

That is worth pausing on. A rule about total cost over a whole journey, and a rule
about the push on an object at one instant, are the same rule. One is expressed as
a statement about the journey. The other as a statement about the moment.

== What you get for free ==

The equation has a feature that saves an enormous amount of work.

'''If the cost rule does not care where you are, something is conserved.''' A
skater on flat ice feels the same conditions everywhere. Nothing about the ice
depends on position. As a result the skater's momentum does not change.

'''If the cost rule does not care what time it is, something else is
conserved.''' The laws of physics were the same yesterday. As a result energy does
not change.

You can read these off without solving anything. Look at the rule, see what it
leaves out, and you know what stays constant.

This is one of the most useful habits in physics. Later in the volume it turns out
to be an instance of a general theorem — every symmetry gives a conserved
quantity — and that is explained at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Symmetry and conservation]].

== What this does not tell you ==

One warning, and it runs through the whole volume.

The equation finds paths where the number stops changing. It does '''not''' tell
you the number is smallest.

The straight line on paper really is the shortest. But that is an extra fact,
proved separately. The equation on its own does not establish it.

There are cases where the equation is satisfied and the path is not shortest at
all. The clearest is the long way round a globe: it obeys the rule at every point
and is obviously not the short route.

Paths found by this equation are called '''extremals'''. The name records that
the rule is satisfied, and nothing more. Whether an extremal is best is a separate
question with its own answer, and that answer is at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Is it really a minimum]].

== What comes next ==

Two things are still missing.

Everything so far assumed both ends of the path are pinned down. What if one end
is free to move? That is at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Free ends]].

And everything so far assumed one thing is moving. Real systems have many parts.
That is at
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/More than one variable]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 16 September 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	[[File:OPL-HP-F-03.png\|thumb\|right\|400px\|A localised test function.]]		[[File:OPL-HP-F-03.png\|thumb\|right\|400px\|A localised test function.]]

	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths]] set things up. You have a rule		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths\|Comparing paths]] set things up. You have a rule
	that gives a number for any whole path. You want the path where that number stops		that gives a number for any whole path. You want the path where that number stops
	changing when you nudge it.		changing when you nudge it.
Line 100:		Line 100:
	to be an instance of a general theorem — every symmetry gives a conserved		to be an instance of a general theorem — every symmetry gives a conserved
	quantity — and that is explained at		quantity — and that is explained at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Symmetry and conservation]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Symmetry and conservation\|Symmetry and conservation]].

	== What this does not tell you ==		== What this does not tell you ==
Line 119:		Line 119:
	the rule is satisfied, and nothing more. Whether an extremal is best is a separate		the rule is satisfied, and nothing more. Whether an extremal is best is a separate
	question with its own answer, and that answer is at		question with its own answer, and that answer 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]].

	== What comes next ==		== What comes next ==
Line 127:		Line 127:
	Everything so far assumed both ends of the path are pinned down. What if one end		Everything so far assumed both ends of the path are pinned down. What if one end
	is free to move? That is at		is free to move? That is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Free ends]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Free ends\|Free ends]].

	And everything so far assumed one thing is moving. Real systems have many parts.		And everything so far assumed one thing is moving. Real systems have many parts.
	That is at		That is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/More than one variable]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/More than one variable\|More than one variable]].