Skip to main content

Summary

A released body falling to the earth travels a distance proportional to the second rather than first power of its terminal velocity. This fact, belatedly recognized by Galileo, denied by Descartes, established by Huygens and Newton, culminated in the law of conservation of (mechanical) energy. Mathematically, this law is based upon a property of the calculus of variations according to which the optimizing solution to

$$0 = \delta \smallint L(q,\dot q)dt = \delta \smallint [\Sigma \Sigma {a_{ij}}({q_1}, \ldots )\dot q - \dot V({q_1}, \ldots )]dt$$

has, because the integrand does not involve time explicitly, an “energy” integral of the form

$$L - \sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {{{\dot q}_i}\partial L/\partial {{\dot q}_i} = cons\tan t = kinetic\;energy + potentional\;energy} $$

.1

I owe thanks to the National Science Foundation. In Chapter 2, I prove similar relations without considering the minimum-time formulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See any treatise on classical mechanics, such as E. T. Whittaker, (1937), Analytical Dynamics, Chapter Ill, p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The differentiable, neoclassical version of the famous von Neumann system is discussed in R. Dorfman, P. Samuelson, and R. Solow (1958), Linear Programming and Economic Analysis,New York: McGraw-Hill, Chapters 11 and 12.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See P. A. Samuelson, “Efficient Paths of Capital Accumulation in Terms of the Calculus of Variations,” pp. 77–88 in K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes, eds. (1960), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959,Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. This is reproduced as Chapter 26 in Samuelson’s (1965) Collected Scientific Papers, Vol. I,J. E. Stiglitz, ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. This efficiency condition is derived in P. A. Samuelson, op. cit., p. 79 in slightly different notation. As arbitrage conditions for own-interest rates in a perfect capital market, they were derived in P. A. Samuelson (1937), “Some Aspects of the Pure Theory of Capital,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LI, pp. 469496, particularly on p. 490 of pp. 485–491. (This is reproduced as Chapter 17 in Collected Scientific Papers, Vol. I, op. cit.)

    Google Scholar 

  5. If we had but one capital good, F would take the simple form 0 = rK-K; with r a constant, the problem would become trivial, since rK would grow at the same exponential rate as K. (The reader is warned that Irving Fisher would not call Y = ~,F. K. = S(—F + .) K. “income,” reserving that word for “consumption,” which is zero in the present closed system. But this is the usual Marshall-Haig definition of income. If, with Mrs. Robinson we call a“Wicksell effect,” it follows that such effects must behave in the described way along any optimal path.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Seep. 85 of the 1960 Samuelson paper cited in Footnote 3.

    Google Scholar 

  7. This case is utilized in C. Caton and K. Shell (1971), “An Exercise in the Theory of Heterogeneous Capital,” Review of Economic Studies, 38, pp. 13–22. It was suggested earlier by P. A. Samuelson (1966), “The Fundamental Singularity Theorem for Non-Joint Production,” International Economic Review, VII, pp. 34–41, as have E. Burmeister and various collaborators.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Another way of formulating the present finding is to say that “the present-discounted value of any future-time investment or income is a strict constant, just as the present-discounted value of any future-time capital stock is a (different) constant. As James Mirrlees states in private correspondence, it is the truth of the first of these that is at first surprising. Edwin Burmeister has also pointed out to me that the constancy of a Pontryagin Hamiltonian is another way of expressing and proving the present result, which is reasonable in view of the classical fact from mechanics that Hamilton’s canonical H (p, q) is given the interpretation of total energy.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For such a Robinson case, see M. Bruno (1967), “Optimal Accumulation in Discrete Capital Models,” in K. Shell, ed., Essays on the Theory of Optimal Economic Growth, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, Essay II, pp. 181218. ( However, the closed von Neumann case is not dealt with by Dr. Bruno. )

    Google Scholar 

  10. See Dorman, Samuelson, and Solow, op. cit., pp. 312–313.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Samuelson, P.A. (1990). Two Conservation Laws in Theoretical Economics. In: Sato, R., Ramachandran, R.V. (eds) Conservation Laws and Symmetry: Applications to Economics and Finance. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1145-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1145-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5786-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1145-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics