Hamilton's principle/History/Maupertuis and the 1744 memoir - Revision history

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

2026-09-16T04:59:11Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 16 September 2026
Line 21:		Line 21:
	which is strong evidence. It is not the same as having opened the memoir and read		which is strong evidence. It is not the same as having opened the memoir and read
	the sentence in it, and this volume does not pretend otherwise. See		the sentence in it, and this volume does not pretend otherwise. See
	[[Hamilton's principle/Sources]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Sources\|Sources]].

	== A date worth getting right ==		== A date worth getting right ==
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Citations give either date, and both are correct about different events. This		Citations give either date, and both are correct about different events. This
	volume cites the reading date, because the priority questions on		volume cites the reading date, because the priority questions on
	[[Hamilton's principle/History/The Maupertuis-Koenig affair]] turn on when the		[[Hamilton's principle/History/The Maupertuis-Koenig affair\|the Maupertuis-Koenig affair]] turn on when the
	claim was made rather than when it appeared.		claim was made rather than when it appeared.

Line 70:		Line 70:
	volume keeps the two apart, as it keeps Euler's own notation apart from its		volume keeps the two apart, as it keeps Euler's own notation apart from its
	modern gloss on		modern gloss on
	[[Hamilton's principle/History/Euler and the Methodus inveniendi]].		[[Hamilton's principle/History/Euler and the Methodus inveniendi\|Euler and the Methodus inveniendi]].

	== The statement ==		== The statement ==
Line 122:		Line 122:
	maxima and saddle points, and both occur in real physical situations — the		maxima and saddle points, and both occur in real physical situations — the
	maximum-time light path on		maximum-time light path on
	[[Hamilton's principle/Applications/Fermat's principle]] is the clearest case.		[[Hamilton's principle/Applications/Fermat's principle\|Fermat's principle]] is the clearest case.

	An argument from economy cannot survive that. A path that takes the longest time		An argument from economy cannot survive that. A path that takes the longest time
Line 132:		Line 132:

	The quantum account on		The quantum account on
	[[Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral]] then removes the		[[Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral\|the Feynman path integral]] then removes the
	last trace of purpose. Stationary action is where interference fails to cancel.		last trace of purpose. Stationary action is where interference fails to cancel.
	Nothing is being economised and nothing is choosing.		Nothing is being economised and nothing is choosing.
Line 155:		Line 155:

	Euler's independent and better-founded statement, from the same year, is at		Euler's independent and better-founded statement, from the same year, is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/History/Euler and the Methodus inveniendi]]. The priority		[[Hamilton's principle/History/Euler and the Methodus inveniendi\|Euler and the Methodus inveniendi]]. The priority
	dispute that followed is at		dispute that followed is at
	[[Hamilton's principle/History/The Maupertuis-Koenig affair]].		[[Hamilton's principle/History/The Maupertuis-Koenig affair\|the Maupertuis-Koenig affair]].

	== References ==		== References ==

	<references />		<references />

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

2026-09-16T04:47:05Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:47, 16 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{DISPLAYTITLE:Maupertuis and the 1744 memoir}}
	Maupertuis announced the principle of least action to the Académie Royale des		Maupertuis announced the principle of least action to the Académie Royale des
	Sciences on 15 April 1744, in a memoir titled ''Accord de différentes loix de la		Sciences on 15 April 1744, in a memoir titled ''Accord de différentes loix de la
Line 161:		Line 162:

	<references />		<references />

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

2026-09-09T05:05:18Z

1 revision imported

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

hamiltons-principle>HPVBuild: Initial import of H-02

2026-09-08T12:00:00Z

Initial import of H-02

New page

Maupertuis announced the principle of least action to the Académie Royale des
Sciences on 15 April 1744, in a memoir titled ''Accord de différentes loix de la
nature qui avoient jusqu'ici paru incompatibles''. It is the first statement of an
action principle for anything beyond optics, and it is the source of the name the
subject still carries.

It is also the source of the word this volume spends most of its length
correcting.

== Provenance note ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-55.png|thumb|right|400px|Three modernised statements attributed to their authors.]]

The memoir exists in a page-by-page transcription on French Wikisource, taken
from a scan, and the transcription carries running text in the original
eighteenth-century orthography.

Maupertuis's central sentence is '''corroborated''' below rather than
'''transcribed'''. Four independent sources quote it with identical wording,
which is strong evidence. It is not the same as having opened the memoir and read
the sentence in it, and this volume does not pretend otherwise. See
[[Hamilton's principle/Sources]].

== A date worth getting right ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-57.png|thumb|right|400px|Transcribed against corroborated.]]

The memoir was '''read''' on 15 April 1744 and '''printed''' in 1748, in the
Académie's volume for 1744, at pages 417 to 426.

Citations give either date, and both are correct about different events. This
volume cites the reading date, because the priority questions on
[[Hamilton's principle/History/The Maupertuis-Koenig affair]] turn on when the
claim was made rather than when it appeared.

== The problem he was solving ==

Maupertuis was not looking for a principle of mechanics. He was trying to settle
an argument about light.

Descartes had derived the law of refraction from an assumption that light travels
'''faster''' in a dense medium. Fermat had derived the same law from least time,
which requires light to travel '''slower''' there. Two derivations, one law,
incompatible assumptions.

The memoir's title says exactly this: an accord between different laws of nature
which had until then seemed incompatible.

Maupertuis was a Newtonian and sided with the Cartesians on the speed question —
he believed light goes faster in glass. So Fermat's least time was unavailable to
him. He needed a different quantity to minimise, one that would give the right law
under his assumption.

'''He worked backwards from the answer to the quantity.''' That is the honest
description of the method, and it is why the choice can look arbitrary.

== What he minimised ==

The quantity he arrived at he called the '''action'''.

In the 1744 memoir, action is the product of '''speed and distance'''.

Note what is missing. There is no mass in it. Mass entered in a separate memoir
presented to the Berlin Academy in 1746, which extended the definition to mass
times speed times distance and applied it to collisions.

'''Writing the 1744 quantity with a mass in it is an error''', and a common one.
It attributes to the first memoir a definition the second one supplied. This
volume keeps the two apart, as it keeps Euler's own notation apart from its
modern gloss on
[[Hamilton's principle/History/Euler and the Methodus inveniendi]].

== The statement ==

Maupertuis's formulation of the principle, in the memoir, is:

<blockquote>
Lorsqu'il arrive quelque changement dans la nature, la quantité d'action,
nécessaire pour ce changement, est la plus petite qui soit possible.
</blockquote>

In English: when some change occurs in nature, the quantity of action necessary
for that change is the least possible.

<blockquote>
Corroborated, not transcribed. The wording above is identical across four
independent sources. This volume has not opened the memoir to confirm it.
</blockquote>

Two things are worth noticing about the sentence.

'''It is a claim about all of nature, not about light.''' The memoir arrives at
the quantity through an optical problem and then states it universally. That leap
is the memoir's real content.

'''The word "least" is doing real work.''' It is not a loose synonym for
"stationary". Maupertuis meant a minimum, and his argument depended on it.

== The metaphysics ==

The reason he meant it is that the principle was, for him, evidence of design.

He presented it as displaying the wisdom of the Creator: nature achieves its
effects by the smallest expenditure, and that economy is a mark of the intelligence
that arranged it.

This was not decoration around a physical result. It was the argument for taking
the principle seriously in the first place. Maupertuis had no derivation. What he
had was a quantity that gave the right optical law and a reason to believe nature
would minimise something.

It is fair to say that the metaphysics is why he generalised the claim to all of
nature, and unfair to say that the metaphysics is why the claim was right.

== Why the metaphysics had to go ==

The principle survived. The reasoning for it did not, and the reason is the
subject of this volume.

Nature does not minimise action. It makes it '''stationary'''. Stationary includes
maxima and saddle points, and both occur in real physical situations — the
maximum-time light path on
[[Hamilton's principle/Applications/Fermat's principle]] is the clearest case.

An argument from economy cannot survive that. A path that takes the longest time
is not evidence of a Creator's thrift.

Hamilton made the correction in 1834, in passing, calling it the law of least, or
as it might be better called, of stationary action.<ref>Hamilton, ''On a General
Method in Dynamics'' (1834), §3. Verbatim. ESTABLISHED source.</ref>

The quantum account on
[[Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral]] then removes the
last trace of purpose. Stationary action is where interference fails to cancel.
Nothing is being economised and nothing is choosing.

== What he got right ==

It would be easy to file Maupertuis as a man who reached a correct result by poor
reasoning, and that is not quite fair.

He was wrong about the speed of light in a dense medium, and Foucault settled it
against him in 1850. He was wrong that the principle expresses minimality. His
grounds were metaphysical and his mathematics was thin — Euler, in the same year,
had far more of it.

But he saw that a quantity of the dimensions of action might be the thing nature
extremises, and that the claim should extend beyond optics to mechanics. Both are
correct, and neither was obvious.

Euler, who had the mathematics, did not claim priority and defended Maupertuis's.

== Where to go next ==

Euler's independent and better-founded statement, from the same year, is at
[[Hamilton's principle/History/Euler and the Methodus inveniendi]]. The priority
dispute that followed is at
[[Hamilton's principle/History/The Maupertuis-Koenig affair]].

== References ==

<references />