Variational calculus applied to physical action, sometimes known –inexactly– as “principle of the least action”, has helped us quite a lot to construct our scientific picture of the natural world. From Leibniz and Maupertuis to Planck and Einstein, this method has repetedly shown its effectiveness, but only with Feynman path-integrals do we begin to understand the underlying explanation.
Variational calculus applied to physical action, sometimes known –inexactly– as “principle of the least action”, has helped us quite a lot to construct our scientific picture of the natural world. From Leibniz and Maupertuis to Planck and Einstein, this method has repetedly shown its effectiveness, but only with Feynman path-integrals do we begin to understand the underlying explanation.
A brief historical review of the Principle of Least Action is given, and it's methodological importance is emphasized: the basic equations of Classical Mechanics can be derived from the conjunction of the Principle Least Action with the Galilean Principle of Relativity and the hypothesis of homogeneity and isotropy of space and the homogeneity of time. In classical electrodinamics, the situation is similar: one can build the action keeping now in mind the Einstein's Principle of Relativity. By means of the solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations one obtain the equations of motion of charges in given fields (Lorentz force) and the first pair of Maxwell equations. Also, starting from the sources of the field (charges and currents), the second pair of Maxwell equations is obtained.\nIn the case of the General Relativity, the trajectories of a free particle are given by the geodesic lines in space-time. The Einstein equations are also obtained by finding the extreme of some action. A brief historical review of quantum theory is given, starting from the introduction of the quantum of action in physics, to the Schrödinger equation, which can be obtained from a variational principle, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Interesting is the role of the classical action in the formulation of quantum mechanics by means of the Feynman path integrals. In it, the classical trajectory in the motion of a system between two configurations, it corresponds the limit in which the Planck constant tends to zero. In quantum electrodinamics, it is required also to start from a Lagrangian together with the properties of space-time simmetry, the gauge invariance and the CPT invariance. Finally, mention is made to the electroweak theory and to quantum cromodynamics
The principle of least action is known to apply to many domains of Physics. Yet its justifications and derivations usually come from archaic classical principles like the Fermat or Maupertuis principles, or mathematical analytical frameworks used for classical mechanics like the Lagrange, Hamilton and D’Alembert formalisms. As is well known, it is widely applicable to other domains, without necessarily a clear justification for it, especially when applied to Physics where Lagrangians or Hamiltonians may not be defined or do not exist. In addition, the Feynman Path Integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics gave it a second life, and another way to justify its validity not only in classical, but also in quantum Physics. However, the conventional logic to reach these conclusions is at time circular, and the principle is applied without proof that it is applicable: it just works and everybody does it. It is this applicability that led us in the past to treat the Action path integral as God’s equation.The paper justifies the principle of least action and Feynman’s path integrals through different physical reasoning instead of the traditional mathematical formalism, and on that basis we confirm its validity in most situations, even if Hamiltonians or Lagrangians may be shaky to define, or the system may be dissipative. We also explain when, and why, sometimes, it may not conventionally apply. The derivation uncovers different links between Entropy and Action, which also opens a different way to look at the origin of the probability distribution of even just a single lone particle; especially when complemented with the W-type multi-fold hypothesis, and makes some considerations on Feynman diagrams, instantons, renormalons and resurgence. Also discontinuities in the paths of the path integrals imply that spacetime is discrete, and non-commutative, and supersymmetry in flat spacetime is unphysical. Surfaceology, as optimized computation of the Feynman diagram is shown to trivially predict that all gauge theories double copy dual to gravity share the same forbidden scatterings. Relying on a recently encountered paper, we show how the results of the multi-fold theory, in particular the multi-fold space time matter induction and scattering, built explicitly on the path integral formalism, its underlying principles, and the principle of least action, allows recovering almost everything in Today’s physics. It leaves out essentially only some of the coupling constants and mixing angles/parameters. This goes a long way towards the ambition of a Theory Of Everything (TOE), even if not presented as usually expected. It maybe the best that can be achieved considering Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Our justification of the principle of least action, and path integrals, and our work on multi-fold theory encounters relationships between Entropy and Action. We review these encounters, including how our early prediction that entanglement might be irreversible match recent published results that argue against the existence of a (second) Law of entanglement analogous to the second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, from our approach, we obtain a formulation of the evolution of entropy, including for irreversible systems, which matches Onsager and Prigogine’s famous models and principles.
The principle of least action is known to apply to many domains of Physics. Yet its justifications and derivations usually come from archaic classical principles like the Fermat or Maupertuis principles, or mathematical analytical frameworks used for classical mechanics like the Lagrange, Hamilton and D’Alembert formalisms. As is well known, it is widely applicable to other domains, without necessarily a clear justification for it, especially when applied to Physics where Lagrangians or Hamiltonians may not be defined or do not exist. In addition, the Feynman Path Integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics gave it a second life, and another way to justify its validity not only in classical, but also in quantum Physics. However, the conventional logic to reach these conclusions is at time circular, and the principle is applied without proof that it is applicable: it just works and everybody does it. It is this applicability that led us in the past to treat the Action path integral as God’s equation.The paper justifies the principle of least action and Feynman’s path integrals through different physical reasoning instead of the traditional mathematical formalism, and on that basis we confirm its validity in most situations, even if Hamiltonians or Lagrangians may be shaky to define, or the system may be dissipative. We also explain when, and why, sometimes, it may not conventionally apply. The derivation uncovers different links between Entropy and Action, which also opens a different way to look at the origin of the probability distribution of even just a single lone particle; especially when complemented with the W-type multi-fold hypothesis, and makes some considerations on Feynman diagrams, instantons, renormalons and resurgence. Also discontinuities in the paths of the path integrals imply that spacetime is discrete, and non-commutative, and supersymmetry in flat spacetime is unphysical. Surfaceology, as optimized computation of the Feynman diagram is shown to trivially predict that all gauge theories double copy dual to gravity share the same forbidden scatterings. Relying on a recently encountered paper, we show how the results of the multi-fold theory, in particular the multi-fold space time matter induction and scattering, built explicitly on the path integral formalism, its underlying principles, and the principle of least action, allows recovering almost everything in Today’s physics. It leaves out essentially only some of the coupling constants and mixing angles/parameters. This goes a long way towards the ambition of a Theory Of Everything (TOE), even if not presented as usually expected. It maybe the best that can be achieved considering Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Our justification of the principle of least action, and path integrals, and our work on multi-fold theory encounters relationships between Entropy and Action. We review these encounters, including how our early prediction that entanglement might be irreversible match recent published results that argue against the existence of a (second) Law of entanglement analogous to the second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, from our approach, we obtain a formulation of the evolution of entropy, including for irreversible systems, which matches Onsager and Prigogine’s famous models and principles.
The principle of least action, which has so successfully been applied to diverse fields of physics looks back at three centuries of philosophical and mathematical discussions and controversies. They could not explain why nature is applying the principle and why scalar energy quantities succeed in describing dynamic motion. When the least action integral is subdivided into infinitesimal small sections each one has to maintain the ability to minimize. This however has the mathematical consequence that the Lagrange function at a given point of the trajectory, the dynamic, available energy generating motion, must itself have a fundamental property to minimize. Since a scalar quantity, a pure number, cannot do that, energy must fundamentally be dynamic and time oriented for a consistent understanding. It must have vectorial properties in aiming at a decrease of free energy per state (which would also allow derivation of the second law of thermodynamics). Present physics is ignoring that and applying variation calculus as a formal mathematical tool to impose a minimization of scalar assumed energy quantities for obtaining dynamic motion. When, however, the dynamic property of energy is taken seriously it is fundamental and has also to be applied to quantum processes. A consequence is that particle and wave are not equivalent, but the wave (distributed energy) follows from the first (concentrated energy). Information, provided from the beginning, an information self-image of matter, is additionally needed to recreate the particle from the wave, shaping a “dynamic” particle-wave duality. It is shown that this new concept of a “dynamic” quantum state rationally explains quantization, the double slit experiment and quantum correlation, which has not been possible before. Some more general considerations on the link between quantum processes, gravitation and cosmological phenomena are also advanced.
R. Feynman (1918-1988), un dels mes grans fisics del s. XX i premi Nobel (1965), quan li preguntaven sobre si entenia la mecanica quantica, responia simplement: It works (funciona). La pregunta es referia naturalment a la significacio de la teoria, a la seva comprensio i a tot allo que la teoria ens podia dir de la realitat fisica del nostre mon. Una pregunta legitima des que l’home es home i raona. La voluntat de comprendre com esta fet el mon, motor de la ciencia, es veu acompanyada tambe per les preguntes com es el mon i que es el mon, preguntes que entren de ple en la massa abandonada filosofia de la naturalesa. La mecanica quantica, per tot el que presenta d’enigmatica, d’incomprensible (s’enten, analitzat conscientment o inconscient des del paradigma filosofic de la fisica classica) posa sobre la taula del debat filosofic, la necessitat de recorrer de nou a la filosofia de la naturalesa, per poder comprendre, sempre i quan, es clar, algu no en tingui prou dient que funciona. Les sorpreses venen quan, pensades les coses, des de l’optica de la filosofia de la naturalesa, hom descobreix que no hi ha tants enigmes. R. Feynman (1918-1988), one of the greatest physicists of the XX century, Nobel Prize (1965), when asked whether he understood quantum mechanics, he responded simply: It works. The question of course refers to the significance of the theory, to its understanding and to all that the theory could tell us about the physical reality of our world: a legitimate question since man can think. The desire to understand how the world is done, the very motor of science, goes together with questions as how the world is and what the world is, questions that go straight into the dough abandoned Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics, by its enigmatic contents (if analyzed from the philosophical paradigm of classical physics) raises to the philosophical debate the need to come back again to Natural Philosophy in order to understand, unless of course someone does not have enough by saying that “it works”. Surprises arrive when, if thinking from the perspective of Natural Philosophy, one discovers that there are not so many enigmas.