World Journal of Mechanics, 2016, 6, 84-93

Published Online March 2016 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/wjm

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/wjm.2016.63007

Intuitive Concept or Physical Meaning of

Lagrangian
Susumu Morita
Department of Biofunctional and Mechanical Systems, Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan

Received 24 February 2016; accepted 26 March 2016; published 29 March 2016

Copyright © 2016 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Abstract
The authors have been studying on the principle of motion generation behind animals, mainly
human, and have reached a certain milestone with it in [1]. Because [1] ended up being very inter-
disciplinary, the author has been looking for an opportunity to close in on the part where we have
grasped the conceptual idea of a Lagrangian. This paper proposes the physical meaning or its in-
tuitive concept of a Lagrangian. This is a daring attempt because the topic is over 240 years of
enigma, whereby so many have neglected of its absence, and physics has gone further towards its
frontiers of their time, and has successfully flourished. Meanwhile, Lagrangian is not getting
enough of teachers’ attention on students getting stuck on this function, despite the fact that it is a
strong foundation as is only the beginning towards Hamiltonian formalism, general relativity, and
modern physics of today. This paper’s sole motive is to answer what the title says in detail, helping
each and everyone who faces Lagrangian for their first time. The paper is positioned to be a sup-
plement for [1]. This literature had three topics bound into one. Out of the three, this document
focuses in the part of the intuitive meaning of Lagrangian, since the paper had contents related to
multiple disciplines. The author finds it worthy to discuss this topic in an independent, more de-
tailed manner.

Keywords
Hamilton’s Principle, Analytical Mechanics, Classical Mechanics, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian

1. Introduction
Lagrangian was introduced by Joseph Lagrange in his book Mèchanique Analytique in 1788. Back from then,
this function has been told not to have a physical meaning, or something not to be asked for such, or neglect to

How to cite this paper: Morita, S. (2016) Intuitive Concept or Physical Meaning of Lagrangian. World Journal of Mechanics,
6, 84-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/wjm.2016.63007
 S. Morita

even bother about its intuitive concept as being the majority attitude of distinctive textbooks. Vast amount of
literature and reputable textbooks such as [2]-[5] have followed this stance, nonetheless played an important role
of education given the long nearly 240 years of time spreading, innovating, and then flourished the technologies
of today. Among many books, the author could only find [6] which states about the absence of a physical
meaning to Lagrangian and the mysteriousness of it. Also, there are the more-than-countable literatures about
Lagrangian, many on the application of Lagrangian to fields other than analytical mechanics. There are numbers
of work focusing on the Lagrangian itself, but rather few compared to its applications. There is one of which is
in the former group [7] by Cruiel, and the author finds it one of the finest in recent works.
The aim of this paper is to propose, and if possible to reveal, the intuitive concept one can imagine about of
Lagrangian. By doing so, the author’s aim is to first and foremost take away the confusion that students who
start to learn analytical mechanics for their first time not to get stuck with Lagrangian while the class keeps its
pace to the next topic. This paper is not a result of a research whose goal is to reveal the meaning of Lagrangian.
This work is a byproduct of a research conducted to reveal the hidden principles behind animals and human. In
other words, this is a byproduct of a research to find out what is and what makes the difference of human move-
ments and robot’s movement, a natural one against something artificial to some sense. This paper mathemati-
cally evokes the geometrical structure differences between Euler-Lagrange equation obtained from Lagrangian
and Canonical equation obtained from Hamiltonian. It claims the naturalness larger in representing a system by
Lagrangian formalism rather than in the Hamiltonian formalism, by showing evidence that in some cases the
Hamiltonian formalism does not carry an equal geometrical structure of a system derived by Lagrangian formal-
ism which is the same of what is derived by D’Alembert’s principle and most of all Newtonian mechanics. The
paper comments on the famous classical textbooks on analytical mechanics [2]-[5], how it is to satisfactory or
not. It also covers numbers of literatures on Lagrangian, trying to make apparent the significance of it, and a
couple works that try the contrary. For the sake of paper length, the author leaves the background to [7]. The
author has also tried to look for literatures focused on exactly the meaning of Lagrangian. Unfortunately and to
some disappointment, whether due to a premature capacity of the author or the difficulty of covering 240 years
of work, no work of such kind could be found. Hence, the author cannot give any additional references, resulting
the reference list to being short.
But, there is one study [1] by Morita that briefly proposed a meaning of Lagrangian, short but tackling the
issue face-to-face which is not seen in any former literatures. What you can only find that talks about Lagran-
gian is whether explaining the significance while no one knows the meaning, or emphasize the mysteriousness
of it. Morita’s work [1] emphasizes on a proposition of a principle criteria behind what is called a Bernstein
Problem, which is: how do human solve an ill-posed problem of a “reaching task?” Or in other words, out of the
infinite trajectories of the hand path to reach for a coffee cup on a table, how do we choose one trajectory out of
it and under what criteria is it chosen? The literature shows the hand path, joint angle histories, joint angular
speed history, joint angular acceleration history, and joint torques histories generated by the proposed method,
significantly matching with the measured data. While Morita’s main focus is to derive a trajectory generation
method that is natural in terms of a mechanics point of view, the meaning of Lagrangian is written as a
byproduct. In this paper the author will take the byproduct as the main issue and discuss about what could be the
meaning of Lagrangian. So the paper discusses the same issue in [1] with vast modification on directly deriving
the meaning that yields more clear explanation, where the author finds it worthy to review in depth an already
published paper. The process is nothing complicated, rather juvenile the author worries. It is a careful step-by-
step review of the elicitation process from equation of motion to the energy equation. Together with [7], this
paper will support the statement by Cruiel’s work [7] from a totally different perspective that Lagrangian is the
most significant and fundamental function in Analytical Mechanics, not Hamiltonian.
In Section 2, the paper begins by deriving the energy equation from the simple equation of motion. This
section will claim the proposition of the meaning of the Lagrangian. This section will ban out all the first comers
to analytical mechanics from tipping on Lagrangian, using their time wondering what to image till it’s too late to
study for exams like we and elders has experienced in their days. Section 3 explains that from a certain stand-
point, Lagrangian can be perceived as the total kinetic energy, of course in a different sense to the conventional
theory that all of us have learned in our elementary years. The author insists here that this section is not to deny
any of the conventional theories. It is to show that there is a different way of grasping the energies within a
system by the term total kinetic energy. Section 4 explains that the Hamilton’s principle is what achieves the
theoretical minimum of external energy consumption, widely used today in many areas of industries. Section 3

85
S. Morita

will emphasize on the kinetic energy and the potential energy and work from a physical meaning perspective.
The difference of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian is in whether you subtract the potential energy or add it. This
difference refers to the viewpoint in which one is looking at each entities’ energy. Section 5 will point out a
foul-up that readers may trip into after perceiving the former sections. Last section will be a summary. The
author asks the readers to understand that the attempt here is to give a meaning to a function that, at least till
today, was not given any. By giving a meaning to a meaning-absent function will not deny, disrupt, or influence
the further mathematical achieved physics, though there maybe cases where one can and should reconsider the
physical meaning of the achieved mathematical expressions.

2. Values You Get When Deriving Energy Equation by Integrating Equation of

Motion
Everyone who learns physics first encounters Newton’s Second Law of motion, the equation of motion,
mq = F . (1)
Here m is the mass of the subject under consideration (for convenience a point mass), q representing the
position vector of the point mass under consideration, and we shall put it as the generalized coordinate in the
()
configuration space for latter convenience. • denotes time derivation. Lastly, F stands for any kind of
force acting on the subject. We will stick with this point mass system to avoid unnecessary complication. By
doing this will not affect the generality of the discussion about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian or in other words
value in order of energy (N∙m). To obtain the information of energy, we learn to first multiply q to both sides
of Equation (1), and then integrate both sides by time parameter t as,
mq ⋅ q = F ⋅ q (2)
t1 t1 dq
⇒ ∫t m q ⋅ qdt = ∫t F ⋅ dt dt (3)
0 0

t1  m 2
⇔ ∫t d  q ( t )  =
qt1

0  2 
∫q t0
F ⋅ dq. (4)

The right hand side of Equation (4) is the work done by the force F moving the point mass m. Now, when
there is a U ( q ) where,
∂U T
F= − , (5)
∂q
then, F is called a conservative force while U ( q ) is called its potential. Using U ( q ) , the work of F has
the relationship,
( ) { ( )} .
qt1
∫qt0
F ⋅ dq =−U qt1 − −U qt0 (6)
From Equation (4),
m
)  ∫q
∫t d  2 q ( t=
t1 2 qt1
F ⋅ dq (7)
0  t0

m 2 m 2 qt
⇔ qt1 − qt0 =∫ F ⋅ dq.
1
(8)
2 2 qt0

2
Putting m qt0 2 = 0 affects nothing to the generality of the discussion, and also implementing some
adequate constant Const. , we can further go,
m
q ( t ) =
qt1
∫q
2
F ⋅ dq + Const. (9)
2 t0

If F is conservative, then Equation (9) can further go,

−U ( q ( t ) ) + Const.
m
q ( t ) =
2
(10)
2

86
 S. Morita

Equation (10) does not lose generality by putting Const. = 0 so Equation (10) can further be transformed to,

q ( t ) = −U ( q ( t ) ) .
m 2
(11)
2
If one demands to make the issue up to a more general case, they can insert a nonconservative force f on
the right hand side of Equation (1),
mq= F + f . (12)
qt1
Now you will have another player within the system whose work is ∫qt0
f ⋅ dq in terms of energy. So,

m 2
−U ( q ) + ∫ 1 f ⋅ dq,
qt
q = (13)
2 qt0

have labored −U ( q ) + ∫q 1 f ⋅ dq making the mass m to be

qt
holds. Equation (13) means F and f
t0

m q ( t )
2
2 much vital. Equation (13) can be perceived as a transfer of energy from one kind to another.
Equation (13) gives you mainly three informations;
(a) m q ( t )
2
2 is the kinetic energy of the mass under the subject, showing how vital the mass is moving.
Here, we only know the magnitude of how active the mass is moving, the term does not give us any more
information in detail, for example in which direction is it moving or accelerating.
(b) One can interpret Equation (13) that it took −U ( q ( t ) ) + ∫q 1 f ⋅ dq of work by force F and f to make
qt

t0

the mass as vital as m q

2
2 . In other words, Equation (13) represents a transfer of energy from one kind to
another. In this case both F and f ’s work was transferred to m’s kinetic energy.
(c) In terms of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, nonconservative forces are in consideration. Hence, if we focus
only about cases where there is no other kind of force except conservative force, m q ( t ) 2 and −U ( q ( t ) )
2

are equal in terms of value. Not U ( q ( t ) ) .

Plus, Equation (5) indicates;
(d) Potential energy is just a special name given to a certain type of energy. Even if something such as
F = − ∂U ∂q holds, −U ( q ) is always in a class of work [4]. It may be called a potential energy but it will
always be within the category of work.
Given that we are considering only conservative force within the system, (a) through (d) indicates at time t the
mass m became as vital as to have m q 2 much of energy, and force F has worked −U ( q ) much of
2

energy. The usual explanation will be that the work done by the force F has transferred to the kinetic energy
of m, thus the only amount of energy with in the system is either m q ( t ) 2 or −U ( q ( t ) ) .
2

Meanwhile in Lagrangian style, all players within the system is equally and independently recognized (Figure
2). The concern is on every entity listed as in Table 1. So, simply taking the net sum of every type of energy
with in the system,

Table 1. Energies and its types within a given system in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Subject (Entity) Value Type

m q
2
m: Mass 2 Kinetic energy of mass (work against void space)

mg : Gravity ∫mg ⋅ dq ( = −m g h h: hight) Work of gravity (gravitational potential)

F: Conservative force ∫F ⋅ dq ( =
−U ( q ) ) Work of conservative force

f : Nonconservative force ∫ f ⋅ dq Work of nonconservative force

87
S. Morita

m q ( t )
2

+ ( −m g h ) − U ( q ( t ) ) + ∫q 1 f ⋅ dq,
qt
(14)
2 t0

is what is to be obtained. This view neglects whether there is a consumption occurring or an energy is
transferred to a different type of energy and etc. It just wants to see what is there. Speaking anthropomorphic,
it’s an information of all the actors within the whole play. In this case the whole play is the physical system
where something is happening, and the information of all the actors is given simply as an addition of them in
terms of energy and work. Even with the kinetic energy, it could be seen as a kind of work if you like. If you
feel uncomfortable, then what if the mass m is an exterior force pushing another mass, say m′ ? One can always
know the force of a mass m from f = mq. For m′ , m’s kinetic energy is exactly the amount of work it would
get. By allowing this way of looking at a mass, it could be said that a mass m is applying “work” m q 2
against a void space. Just because there is nothing to apply ones “work” does not implicate that such case is
cannot occur. An astronaut in a space station doing a sit up exercise without a support will definitely make him
tired. But then who receives extra energy? No one. Just because there’s no one to receive a work does not mean
the subject is not working. That is why the mass in Table 1 has its type as a “(work against void space).” Under
this viewpoint, if one is considering a system with a mass m and just a conservative force F ( =− ( ∂U ∂q ) ) ,
T

then the total sum will be,

m q ( t )
2

− U ( q (t )) , (15)
2
which is exactly the function structure of a Lagrangian. Being anthropomorphic once again, Lagrangian is like
the work of the whole system as if it is like a laborer. Thus the action integral is like the whole effort of the
laborer of a one day’s work (a physical reaction happening within a certain time interval) and the Hamilton’s
principle indicates that mechanics imposes the entities within the system to act and move so that the total effort
of the laborer would be the minimum (stationary, being more precise).
This is totally different from a Hamiltonian way ( m q (t ) 2
2 + U ( q (t )) ) of looking at a system from an
energy view. Trying best to picture the situation with Figure 1, Hamiltonian way of perceiving a system is not
the net sum of all the energy there is within the system, it sees how much energy is there within the system at a
given moment, for example,
m q ( t )
2

+ m g h + U ( q ( t ) ) − ∫ 1 f ⋅ dq .
qt
(16)
2 qt0

It just wants to see what is left within the system in terms of energy. As done in Lagrangian style the total
energy existing within a system is, only considering a system with a mass m and a conservative force F
( =− ( ∂U ∂q ) ) ,
T

m q ( t )
2

+ U ( q (t )) , (17)
2
which is exactly the function structure of a Hamiltonian.
The reason why Lagrangian is structured with a minus sign on the potential energy term is because of the way
one is observing the system (Figure 1, Figure 2). This corresponds to how Lagrangian is derived from
D’Alembert’s principle, which handles energy of any entity within the system without any distinction. Hence, it
makes no inconsistencies with the D’Alembert’s principle. A more useful reason why some physical function is
structured that way is discussed in Section 4.

3. Which Is Total Kinetic Energy? Hamiltonian or Lagrangian

Now, let us recall the Hamiltonian and total kinetic energy m q ( t ) 2 + U ( q ( t ) ) . As discussed in Section 2,
2

Lagrangian is a collection of all the entities’ energy within a system expressed as a simple sum which is literally
total energy within a system. Then which one is more legitimate to be called “total kinetic energy,” Hamiltonian
or Lagrangian? The answer is, they both do.

88
 S. Morita

Figure 1. Illustration of a Hamiltonian viewpoint image.

Figure 2. Illustration of a Lagrangian viewpoint image.

Somehow, Lagrangian bought the price of being a enigma while Hamiltonian was fitted in so smoothly due to
the occasion that the first integral of time symmetry of a system was equal to the total kinetic energy. One may
think that it would have turned around if potential energy was defined without a minus sign, F = ∂U ∂q . But
that is not the case because, if it were defined as such the total kinetic energy would have been m q 2 − U (q) ,
2

and Lagrangian would have been found in a style as m q 2 + U ( q ) . The Legandre transform of the
2

Lagrangian would define the Hamiltonian as m q 2 − U ( q ) , thus making the same situation with a different
2

sign before the potential energy term. So, without discriminating the view point of the observer described in
Section 2, there is no way to give a imaginable meaning to the Lagrangian. So redefining potential energy
without a minus sign is not a fundamental remedy of the last 240 years of students suffering. This is how it has
been and will be unless the reader copes with the proposal of this paper.
As a summary, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian are both legitimate to be called a total kinetic energy, but they
differ in the attitude of the observer looking at the system and its entities. Hamiltonian is a function that gives
you the income and outgo of energy within the system. The value does not care of the energy type transfers

89
S. Morita

occurring in the system. The value does not care about the happenings inside the system. Lagrangian does not
focus on the income-outgo of the systems’ energy, it handles kinetic energy and potential energy in an equal
manner. Hence, the action integral can be understood as a time integration of every and any kind of energy,
whether a kinetic energy or a potential energy or work of some force acting within the system, during the whole
motion. So turns out that Hamilton’s principle is in words finding a path q ( t ) that gives an extremum of the
sum of all the energy one can find within a system integrated through the whole duration. It can be interpreted as
a principle requiring the combination that yields the least expenditure of the sum of all the energy that can be
found within the system during a motion.

4. The Action Integral Is the Very Definition of the Least Energy Consumption
As a byproduct of the discussion, we obtain a theoretical (possibly) minimum energy consumption condition for
a certain task. Let us consider work W of a nonconservative force f , with its potential U, and a point mass that
has a kinetic energy K at the given moment. Then, the extended Hamilton’s principle [5] is,
t1
δ ∫t K − U + Wdt =
0. (18)
0

Equation (18) can further be transformed as,

t1 t1
δ ∫t K − Udt =
−δ ∫ Wdt.
t
(19)
0 0

If the both sides of Equation (19) is equal to 0, then it is the case of a free motion, a motion with only
t1
conservative forces acting on the point mass because δ ∫ K − Udt =
0 is exactly a form of Hamilton’s principle.
t 0

In this case, both,

δ t1K − Udt =
 ∫t0
0,
 t1 (20)
δ ∫ Wdt = 0.
 t0
t1 t1
holds, meaning that ∫t Wdt
0
and ∫t K − Udt
0
is at a minimum (or more precisely stationary) situation. Equation
t1 t1
(20) both holds at the same time, therefore solving δ ∫ Wdt = 0 and δ ∫ K − Udt =
0 is about acquiring the
t 0t 0
t1
same solution. δ ∫ Wdt = 0 means that the total effort by force F is at a minimum (or more precise at an
t 0
t1
extremum). Plus that δ ∫ K − Udt =
0 is exactly the Hamilton’s principle, Hamilton’s principle is a principle to
t 0
t1 t1
obtain minimum energy consumption. A simple variational calculation to δ ∫ Wd=
t δ ∫ f ⋅ dq= 0 will yield
t t 0 0

nonconservative force f ≡ 0 denoting that the motion is a free motion which makes perfect sense. One can
also appreciate this situation as the least energy consumption because f ≡ 0 holds during the whole duration,
consuming no external energy at all. Equation (20) are both necessity condition for a minimum (nonconservative
force’s) energy consumption. But f ≡ 0 is all we can get, then only free motion is eligible so we can do
nothing to the system. But if there is a way to find a series of q ( t ) where f ( t ) ≡/ 0 , then such q ( t ) and
f ( t ) could possibly yield an minimum energy consuming motion, which is highly recommended in industries.
One may wonder how occasion where (20) and f ( t ) ≡/ 0 can be achieved. Such q ( t ) and f ( t ) can be
found in [1]. So, it is quite worthy on discussing about the physical meaning of Lagrangians.

5. Misconception and Misunderstanding That Occur from the Former

Discussions and Previous Eras’ Education
5.1. Lagrangian Cannot Have a Meaning Because It Is Not Unique?
Like the gauge transformation [4] tells us, Lagrangian is not necessary unique. For some given function g where
it is a function of the generalized coordinates q and time t and it is differentiable by t, a new Lagrangian L′
that yields the same Euler-Lagrange equation from predefined Lagrangian L can always newly be made by,

90
 S. Morita

dg ( q , t )
L=′ L + . (21)
dt
The author asks the readers to think about the g induced with in Equation (21). Where in terms of information
do you get to obtain the function g? Yes, such g does no harm in deriving the demanded Euler-Lagrange
equation. But that is in mathematical terms, not by any means supported by physics. The author’s claim here is
that most of L′ derived by g is quite artificial in the sense that g is not necessarily a function derived from the
systems information. For instance, like gauge transformation of an electromagnetic field system seen in many
textbook exercises is not artificial in the author’s sense, because the g chosen for this example shows that g
carries with it information on the physical system under consideration. But if you have a function g that carries
with it no information of the system at all, it is only mathematically legitimate for deriving the same Euler-
Lagrange equation. Why is it wrong to recognize the two as of a different class? Or why should we treat them
with the same status in terms of physics?
The author received a notion that one cannot give a unique meaning to something that multiply exists. This
was shocking because this is quite out of the argument appropriate in a level of professionals. The claim was
saying as if that defining an airplane as “a man-build vehicle that flies in the air with a fixed wing” is a wrong
doing, not because the definition is not accurate enough but because there is a Cessna, Beechcraft, Boeing 787,
Concords, Airbus 380, etc. multiple aircrafts in the world. This is totally out of logic. He may have claimed it in
a different sense that because each of the arbitrary Lagrangians may have different meaning, therefore giving a
unique meaning to the whole class of the arbitrary Lagrangians is not possible. This claim is totally logical, and
the author has no objection. But one must recognize that the claim does not deny some particular Lagrangians
having a unique meaning just only applicable to themselves. If one denies this, then what would be the evidence
in categorizing ourselves human? It is wrong in classifying Mary and Jack both human beings?

5.2. Potential Energy Is Not Work?

The author have had a dispute that calling potential energy as a type of work is by definition wrong. The two has
a complete different property. The author agrees that the two has a different property, but author disagrees the
dispute that potential energy is not a type of work.
This is pretty shocking because we have to go all the way back to the most elementary state of learning
mechanics. To all those that thinks potential energy is not work, the author begs them to open their introductory
textbook on mechanics, such as [4], to the chapter on energy and work. There one should find first that a work
W of a given force F is defined by,
qt1
=
W ∫q
t0
F ⋅ dq.
The above applies for any and all kinds of force, hence of course conservative forces like gravity and
electro-magnetic forces are included. The above as a premise, potential energy is defined when force F has a
property when there is a scalar function U ( q ) where,
∂U
F= − .
∂q
When the above holds then,
q1  ∂U ( q ) 
−U ( q ) ,
q1 q
∫q0 F ⋅ dq =
W= ∫q0  − ∂q  dq = − ∫q 1dU =
  0

holds. When there exists such U ( q ) , it is called a potential energy. As you can see from the derivation above,
the definition of U ( q ) as a potential energy does not deny the fact that it can be perceived as a form of work.
Or rather, the definition of a potential energy is given as a special case of work with an opposite sign. The author
finds no serious logical disruption.

5.3. Hamilton’s Principle Could Change into a Silly Simple Expression

(
Let us introduce K := m q ( t )
2
2 ) for kinetic energy in general. Then, as we seen in former sections

91
S. Morita

Lagrangian L is,
L= K − U . (22)
From −U ( q ) =∫ F ⋅ dq with Equation (4), Equation (11) indicating m q 2 = K = −U , the above could be
2

further manipulated as,

L= K − U
= 2K (23)
= 2 ∫ F ⋅ dq
= −2U . (24)
Remember these manipulations hold not just for a system with a point mass but any kind of physical system,
as long as they are in the size where Newtonian mechanics is appropriate. As Equation (23) or Equation (24)
tells, any system at any given time that Lagrangian is always twice of the kinetic energy of the subject under
consideration or twice that of the work done to the subject under consideration.
There maybe readers who wonder such as,
Why not minimize K or −U instead? Equation (23) and Equation (24) denotes that L = 2 K = −2U and
moreover, K is a convex function. It’s very convenient.
If you come up with this question, you must understand the meaning of an equal sign “=” in mathematics,
more precisely arithmetics. A = B means that A and B are equal, yes. But that is in the sense of values and
numbers, and solely that. This is more understandable if it was written like A ( x ) = B ( x, y ) . This still tells us
that both A ( x ) and B ( x, y ) are equal, but only as numeric values, not its function structure. That is why
minimizing solely K or −U will not be the same as minimizing L=( K − U ) , the Lagrangian.

6. Conclusions
This paper pointed out the followings;
a) One can perceive Lagrangian with a conceptual meaning.
b) Lagrangian is the effort of the potential energy working on a physical subject and that physical subject’s
kinetic energy showing its own intensity of moving, or in other words, the physical subject working against a
void space, at a given moment.
c) Hamilton’s principle is the very definition of the least energy consumption.
Following these were some misunderstandings that may occur in accepting that the content of the paper is
noted and untangled. An important thing not noted apparently in this paper is that a Lagrangian having a per-
ceivable meaning does not deny any of the mechanics and physics that has been constructed over the 240 years
after the Lagrangian’s introduction.
With this paper, the author hopes many coming first learners of analytical mechanics not to get stuck on
Lagrangian, leave it as just a very useful tool, but imagine the concept in vision like you could with many other
physical values like kinetic energy and inertia and so on. What may be derived from understanding the meaning
of a Lagrangian can be found in [1].

Acknowledgements
We thank the Editor and the referee for their comments. The research of S. Morita does not have a particular
funding, grants, and supports, though there is a great gratitude to the university. Finally, an acknowledgment that
is out of words goes to S. Morita’s doctrate supervisor Prof. T. Ohtsuka currently at Kyoto University, Japan.

References
[1] Morita, S. (2012) Trajectory Generation between Two Arbitrary States Based on Hamilton’s Principle—A Variable
Substitution Method. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 9, 3.
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/So219843612500235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219843612500235

92
 S. Morita

[2] Lifshitz, E.M. and Landau, L.D. (1981) Mechanics. 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford.
[3] Arnold, V.I. (1997) Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. 2nd Edition, Springer, New York.
[4] Goldstein, H., Poole, C.P. and Safko, J.L. (2013) Classical Mechanics. 3rd Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Essex.
[5] Lanczos, C. (1986) The Variational Principles of Mechanics. 4th Edition, Dover, New York.
[6] Suto, Y. (2008) Analytical Mechanics Quantum Theory. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. (In Japanese)
[7] Cruiel, E. (2014) Classical Mechanics Is Lagrangian; It Is Not Hamiltonian. British Journal for the Philosophy of
Science, 65, 269-321. http://www.bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/05/11/bjps.axs034.abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axs034

93