User talk:Johnjbarton/sandbox/least action

Physics NA‑class

	Physics portal This page 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
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Looking for preliminary review

This is a draft of an article to named "Action principles".

I will propose to move stationary-action principle to the name "Action principles" and replace its content with User:Johnjbarton/sandbox/least_action.

After investigating the "stationary-action principle" name means "Hamilton's principle", see History_of_variational_principles_in_physics#Modern_terminology.
The content of stationary-action principle duplicates Hamilton's principle and History_of_variational_principles_in_physics. The useful content has been merged into those articles.

@ReyHahn I would appreciate a look over this draft and any edits you care to add. I'm still working on the quantum sections, Schwinger is tough. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if I should ping you here but please ping me back when you reply. I see that it is still incomplete so this is some quick assessment: "Common concepts" is too simplified for my taste, I know we should give some bread to students but for me it is hard to assess how useful this section is as is not intended in enclycopedic tone. The order in "Distinct principles" is weird, I would prefer for it to go from most specific (Fermat's) to the more general (Hamilton's). The quantum sections should be expanded or link to a larger article on quatum action principle (do we have one?). I am not sure what goes in applications as this is not variational principle article. Do not forget to at least mention general relativity there somewhere. Other than that keep the great work!--ReyHahn (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ReyHahn <<-- I hope this what you mean by 'ping'?

Thanks!

Can you help me understand "encyclopedic tone"? I understand not using "we see that" bit, but otherwise I don't.
The general intent is for the article to be summaries of other articles. That is what is missing now.
I used Goldstein's order for the specific principles. I'll think about the other way around.

I am working on quantum and haven't forgotten general relativity yet. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Action_(physics)#The_action_principles_and_related_ideas

I think that summary is not helpful because it mostly formula and names. What I was going for here is something that would help readers understand. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's the ping. Maybe non encyclopaedic is not the term, I understand that you want to provide sections for laypeople to get introduced into the subject, I just say that these sections are hard to assess because these are intentionally vague. For the moment the content seems ok, I just not very fan of analogies (I prefer clear examples). The section in Action (physics) is clearly not very good, but I guess works more like a key word directory for the topic. As for the order, it seems natural for me to introduce Fermat, then Mapertuis principle and then Hamilton's as it was done historically. On notation: I would use KE and PE in Roman font so that they do not look like K times E, i.e.

\mathrm {KE}

instead of

KE

.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]