I am a math grad student learning mechanics from Landau-Lifshitz's textbook, and I have a question about their derivation of Hamilton's equations from Lagrange's. In short, they use a variational principle with respect to and , where they allow arbitrary variations and . However, determines , so this is not quite rigorous. Let me summarize the derivation. Since , the action integral is Now, to apply a variational principle, consider a variation and where . The change is is By integration by parts this can be re-written as For this to always be zero for all and , we require Hamilton's equations and . Let me say why I'm unhappy with this derivation. In the usual derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations, you only consider a variation . This determines a variation and we solve for . However, suddenly Landau-Lifshitz is telling us to take a variation of both and freely. This is problematic, since the change in is determined by . That would be analogus to, if, in the Lagrangian formalism, you took a variation and , where was an arbitrary function unrelated to the derivative of . So, my question is: What justifies taking an arbitrary variation and in the derivation of Hamilton's equations, while you are not allowed to take arbitrary variations and in the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations?
A variational approach to deriving Hamilton's equations
Kenta S

