[oddthink]

Thank you! The Lagrangian as projection of energy-momentum actually makes sense, unlike the "let's just subtract potential from kinetic. No reason, it just works" story. I'd been idly wondering that for a while (and this is as someone with a physics degree, though in astro, which is a good bit more applied).

[adrian_b]

Hamilton has introduced what he has called the "Principal Function S", which is used in his variational principle on which the Lagrangian formulation is based.

Nowadays this function is frequently called "Hamilton's action", though this is not a good idea because it causes confusions with what Hamilton, like all his predecessors, called "action", which is the integral of the kinetic energy.

The "Principal Function S", which is a scalar value, i.e. a relativistic invariant quantity, is the line integral of the Lagrangian over the trajectory in space-time, i.e. it is the line integral of the energy-momentum 4-vector over the trajectory in space-time.

Like any line integral of a vector, the line integral of the energy-momentum 4-vector is equal to the line integral over the trajectory of its projection on that trajectory.

This is why the Lagrangian is the projection of the energy-momentum 4-vector. Hamilton has found the correct form of this line integral in relativistic theory, even if that was about 3 quarters of century before the concept of 4-vectors became understood.

The "Principal Function S", i.e. the integral of the energy-momentum, can be considered as a more fundamental quantity than the Lagrangian, which is its derivative (the energy-momentum vector is its gradient). In quantum mechanics the "Principal Function S" is the phase of the wave function, so it is even more obvious that it must be an invariant quantity.

[Cleonis]

There is a way of _arriving_ at that subtraction, rather than just throwing it out there.

A resource I created:

Calculus of Variations as applied in physics: http://cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/calculus_variations.php

Hamilton's stationary action: http://cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/energy_position_equation.p...

In that resource I show why it works.

In an earlier answer I gave more information about that resource. To find that earlier answer: go up to the entire thread, and search on the page for my nick: Cleonis

[ElDji]

This is the exact point that confused me a lot (and still confuses me) when I tried to read the "The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics" : "Hey, let's just fix/define the lagrangian as T - V and you'll see that after some magical math stuff in the following chapter, we'll find back newtonian equations. Trust me for now".

If anyone has a reference/book/paper that allows you to learn this concept more intuitively, I'd be grateful.

[Cleonis]

I have created a resource for the purpose of making Hamilton's stationary action transparent.

It is possible to go in all forward steps from F=ma to Hamilton's stationary action; that is what I present.

The path from F=ma to Hamilton's stationary action consists of two stages: (1) Derivation of the work-energy theorem from F=ma (2) Demonstration: when the conditions are such that the work-energy theorem holds good then Hamilton's stationary action will hold good also.

I recommend that you first absorb the presentation of the subset of Calculus of Variations that is applied in physics: http://cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/calculus_variations.php

Discussion of Hamilton's stationary action: http://cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/energy_position_equation.p...

These presentations are illustrated with interactive diagrams. Each diagram has one or more sliders for manipulation of the contents of the diagram. That way a single diagram can offer a range of cases/possibilities.

About my approach: I think of Hamilton's stationary action as an engine with moving parts. To show how an engine works: construct a model out of translucent plastic, so that the student can see all the way inside, and see how all of the moving parts interconnect. My presentation is in that spirit.

[ElDji]

Thank you.