Talk:Analytical mechanics

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Dynamical systems.

Merging Analytical Mechanics into Dynamics (mechanics)

Do not agree. I think these two disciplines have very different styles, and although commonly regarded as concerning the same subject matter, Analytical Mechanics seems to me to be much more general, sort of a frame-theory, an abstract formalism, rather than a theory about a determinate content. I seem to vaguely recall, in this respect, dealing in early college with electromagnetic phenomena using Analytical Mechanics' formalism! Again, I think they should be kept separate, at least for now. Will be, hence, removing the merger tag. --Aqualung 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And before anyone comes back to this: I strongly disagree with merging this article into any other. Please leave it alone - NOT just because of my re-write; because IT IS a notable topic in its own right and there are plenty of articles within the scope of this one which all need a central summary. Of course there will be overlap between things, but that’s not a reason for pulling every single related article into one long, unreadable mash of formalism... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 10:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use this article as an intro + overveiw

This article should contain the bulk of the qualitative details, leaving ~~all~~ (most of) the maths to the rest. D’Alembert, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc formalisms are all very closely interlinked so this article can easily contain all these and provide all the links. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the article completely, and pretty much defeated some of my own point above. For this article to be a summary of terminology, equations, definitions, etc. the maths needs to be here, but there are no derivations and everything is linked in excruciating detail - all further details are left to the main articles. Hopefully any confusion the lay reader may have between "phase space" and "configuration space", what the commutators and Poisson brackets are and their connection, or "Hamilton's characteristic/principle functions" in addition to the one defined by the Lagrangian, and how such little things with their own articles all link together into the framework of analytical mechanics, has been outlined and clarified neatly... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 10:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonian Formulation is more general

"The Hamiltonian formulation is more general, allowing time-varying energy, identifying the path followed to be the one with stationary action."

There is a section that states the above. I'm not an expert, but the expression below appears to be an action formulated with respect to a Lagrangian, and my understanding is that the Hamiltonian conserves energy, rather than allowing it to vary, so the statement above seems to be false. Perhaps the word "Hamiltonian" should be replaced by "Lagrangian"? 70.247.175.25 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian equations are equivalent, whatever you can do in one you can in the other. I think in the section you mention "Hamiltonian Formulation" really refers to "Hamiltonian principle", one version of the principle of least action. I'll simplify the wording. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 08:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to article with NPOV issues

The section "See also" makes a reference to an article with clear neutrality issues. I suggest the removal of that reference for lack of notability. As is well known, there is no unique formulation of analytical mechanics and the list should only point of especially notable formulations such as the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The reference to the little-known Udwadia-Kalaba equation in the same vein as the other substantially more notable ones is inappropriate.

- V madhu (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The page Udwadia-Kalaba equation is clearly related to this page and it is clearly notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to standard formatting with Main wikilinks

This article is set in different manner than other articles. I've been changing it to match the normal look. Using Template:main, for example, makes it clear that the section is intended to be a summary. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Analytical dynamics into Analytical mechanics

I propose to merge this article into Analytical mechanics.

This one by itself does not add value. Analytical mechanics covers dynamics or introduces article that do. It does not make sense to have this Analytical dynamics as a standalone topic. I've copied the important bits from this page, other than "Fundamental importance ..." which did not seem important to me. That section contains a bunch of refs but they don's support the thesis of the section (importance) but only the document the topics of some text books. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand less about analytical mechanics after I read this article.

I would love to see an article about the transition from classical to quantum mechanics. It was a fascinating time for physics. Can we capture that excitement in an encyclopedia article? T0hierry (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content discussing the transition to wikipedia in many articles. However I think the challenge to address the issue directly is plain: few readers appreciate classical mechanics or understand quantum mechanics so the transition is effectively a bridge too far. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]