Probabilistic and Geometric Languages

in the Context of
the Principle of Least Action
Vladislav E. Terekhovich
Department of Philosophy of Science and Techniques,
arXiv:1210.1176v2 [[Link]-ph] 27 Feb 2014

Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract
This paper explores the issue of the unification of the three languages of
physics, the geometric language of forces, geometric language of fields or 4-
dimensional space-time, and probabilistic language of quantum mechanics. On
the one hand, equations in each language may be derived from the Principle of
Least Action (PLA). On the other hand, Feynmans path integral method could
explain the physical meaning of PLA. The axioms of classical and relativistic me-
chanics can be considered as consequences of Feynmans formulation of quantum
mechanics.

Keywords: minimal principles, Hamiltons principle, path integral, interpre-

tation quantum mechanics, probability causality.

1 Introduction
We are used to describing each area of nature within the framework of a specific
branches of science, which uses special methods or languages. Under the notion lan-
guage of the branch of science I mean not only a formal set of definitions, axioms,
logical rules, and mathematical tools. The language also includes a view of causality
and reality1 .

1
V. Heisenberg wrote about the language of science as a set of concepts, logic, and ontology
axioms [1]. T. Kuhn said about the languages used in science and included many assumptions about
nature [2]

1
 It is well accepted that the different languages coexist in physics. They are based on
the concepts of forces, fields, streams, stability, space-time geometry, statistics, prob-
ability, and others. For instance, a motion of the macroscopic objects is described in
terms of the forces or fields. The language of curved space-time is used for the de-
scription of the cosmological objects. The geometric representation of the objects and
deterministic causality unite both these languages. However, philosophical foundations
of the languages are different. Until the present, many scientists have believed that the
probabilistic language of thermodynamics, especially of non-equilibrium, is a statistical
approximation of classical mechanics. After the Copenhagen formulation of quantum
mechanics (QM), some physicists accepted that geometrical and deterministic causality
are not applicable to the micro objects. Some of them, like Max Born, are sure that
the wave theory must dispose of the means of translating its results into the language
of the ordinary objects of mechanics [3]. All attempts to reduce quantum probabil-
ity to statistics or to consider the probabilistic description as incomplete have failed.
Many interpretations of the physical meaning of QM have appeared [49]. However, it
remains unclear how to reconcile the classical laws of nature with impossibility of the
deterministic definition of the quantum events in time and space. This paper attempts
to give a partial answer to this question.
Richard Feynman believed that every decent physicist-theorist knows six or seven
theories that describe of the same physical facts [10]. It is known that the philosophical
foundations of such theories often contradict each other. Scientists do not like this
fact, at least for aesthetic reasons. They understand that scientific knowledge equals
an awareness of connections [11]. The connections are realized within the language of
the scientific community, which is, in turn, connected with the dominant paradigm [2].
Thus, mutual understanding is defined by the common language.
In this paper, I describe how to remove some contradictions between the geometri-
cal descriptions in terms of forces, fields, and 4-dimensional space-time and the prob-
abilistic laws of QM. My proposal is based on the variational principlethe Principle
of Least Action (PLA). The physical and philosophical meaning of it is disclosed by
means of Feynmans formulation of QM using the path integral or many paths method.
It is considered that the axioms of classical mechanics, classical field theory, and
general relativity are based on the happy guesses of their creators (that is not the
entire truth). I consider these theories as the necessary consequences of QM. The
equations of the main fields of physics can be represented as the limit of quantum
equations. This is because the geometric description of motion in n-dimensional space
can be represented as a convenient mathematical approximation of more fundamental

2
probabilistic descriptions.
PLA was formulated by Maupertuis in 1744. Euler gave it a mathematical form,
Lagrange, DAlamber, Hamilton, Gauss, Helmholtz, and others took part in its im-
provement. Einstein considered that whole general relativity could be derived from
this single variational principle [12]. Planck named it as a more universal law of nature
than the law of conservation of energy and momentum, so PLA dominates above all re-
versible phenomena of physics [13]. Eddington wrote about two great generalizations
of science: PLA and the second law of thermodynamics [14]. Moore states that this
principle lies at the core of much of contemporary theoretical physics [15]. Attention
to PLA has not weakened, especially in connection with quantum physics [1622], and
cosmology [2327].
To prove my approach, I show that the basic equations of some physical theories
are equivalent to one of PLAs forms, which are equivalent to each other. I show that
each form of PLA could be represented as the limit of Feynmans path integral method
based on the notion of quantum probability amplitudes.

2 Four methods to describe motion of body and

their philosophical foundations
There are four methods to predict the flight path of a body thrown angularly to the
horizon (see [28, 29]).
The first method. Newtonian theory says that the body has inertia and is attracted
by the Earth with a certain force. The forces of inertia and gravity depend on the bodys
weight. The actual movement at each moment is a sum of movements caused by both
forces. According to Newtons idea, the body has a mysterious internal tendency of
moving straight with constant speed. If the body feels the effect of external forces, it
is accelerated. It is assumed that the force effect is felt at a distance (not locally) and
depend on the bodys height from the center of the Earth. If bodys initial position and
the vector of speed are known, we can write down an equation to calculate all points
of its trajectory. As a result, the actual trajectory is defined as the sum of two virtual
trajectoriesthe horizontal and vertical.
The second method. If we do not like the mystical effect at a distance, we can
describe the same bodys flight in terms of field theory. The field is a collection of
numbers at each point of space. These numbers, called potentials, vary from one
point of space to another. If we put the body at any point of space, we find the force
acting on the body in the direction, in which the potential decreases most rapidly. In

3
other words, this force is proportional to the speed of the potential decrease, or the
vector of the force is an antigradient of potential energy. The actual bodys trajectory
is determined by the force at each point in space.
It seems that the body probes space along all virtual trajectories around itself and
rushes along single trajectory where the potential of the gravitational field is minimum.
The faster the potential decreases, the faster the body rushes (ones usually say that
the force acting on the body is greater). The field formulation allows us to predict the
bodys flight, if we know what is happening in the present moment at each point around
it. The clause at the present moment is important, because virtual probes of space
do not take any real time. Unfortunately, without metaphors we cannot explain how
the body learns the value of the potential at the neighbouring points.
The third method. Another method of predicting the bodys flight is very different
from the first or the second ones, especially in a philosophical sense. It is not necessary
to know what is happening at the close moment in time or at the neighbouring points
of space. We only need to know the bodys initial and final positions in space and
time. PLA states that the actual bodys trajectory from one point to another in the
same time is the one from all possible ones, for which a functional called action is
minimum or stationary. Hamiltons form of PLA2 says that along the actual bodys
trajectory the difference between its average kinetic and potential energies reaches a
minimum in comparison with all possible trajectories. The differential equations of the
bodys motion in the gravitational field (Euler-Lagrange equations) could be derived
from PLA [31]. Each virtual trajectory of the body corresponds to a certain amount
of the action, but only that trajectory is actual, for which the action is minimum.
Only this trajectory is observed as real and exactly coincides with the results of two
previous methods. Now we do not need to think about any forces. We also do not need
for a fictitious inertial force, because in the absence of the potential field, the bodys
trajectory with the least action is the straight line with constant speed3 .
The fourth method. In general relativity theory, there are no attractive forces and
potential fields of gravity. Instead, overall geometric space-time is curved under the

2
This principle arose from the optical-mechanical analogy with Fermats principle, by which the
light moves along the path that takes less time. Schrodinger in his Nobel speech showed that only
in terms of the wave method of observation do Hamiltons and Fermats principles open their true
value [30].
3
PLA has an advantage over the principle of conservation of energy and variational principles of
mechanics (DAlambers, virtual displacements, Gauss, and others), because in one equation, PLA
gives the relation between the values of space, time, and potentials [32].

4
influence of Earths mass. The body moves inertially along a world line (called a
geodesic) in space-time between initial and final events. The form of the geodesic is
calculated by the equation for 4-dimensional space-time. For Earths conditions the
result of calculations coincides with the results of the previous three methods, and the
form of the geodesic is accurately described by PLA of classical mechanics [33]. For a
free body, the actual world line between two events is the one, from all possible world
lines, for which a value of the bodys proper time is maximum or stationary. This line
is the geodesic. This principle is called the Principle of Maximum Proper Time4 . For
weak gravitational fields and low speeds, it is reduced to PLA in Hamiltons form (see
the third method).

3 Feynmans formulation of quantum mechanics

In 1942, Richard Feynman [34] used the ideas of Huygens and Fresnel, which had for-
merly inspired Schrodinger to his wave equation, and proposed a new formulation of
QM. He replaced a classical concept of a particles motion along a single and unique
path by a representation of the motion along an infinite set of conceivable paths, and
mathematically described it by a functional integral. He assumed that the particle
moves simultaneously along all possible paths, each of these is associated with a quan-
tum amplitude of probability. The quantum amplitudes of all paths are extinguished
at the final point, so that the maximum probability corresponds to the actual path,
for which the variation of some functional is zero. Feynman called this functional the
action by analogy with classical mechanics and connected it with the quantum phase
of waves of probability [35]. Every possible path of the particle possesses the phase,
and the amplitudes near the actual path are nearly in the same phase. Thus, they
reinforce each other and generate significant effects, observable as real. Other paths
exist too (they are called virtual or imaginable), but they are not observed or, more
precisely, their probability to be observed are very small. It could be called as proba-
bilistic existence. The probability of observing is given by the square of a modulus of
the amplitude (wave function). This formulation of QM is mathematically equivalent
to Heisenbergs matrix method and Schrodingers wave equation [36].

4
Using the Principle of Maximal Aging, we can study stars and black holes without the tensors
and field equations of general relativity (see [23, 24]).

5
4 Classical body and quantum mechanics
Consider how QM relates to the flight of the classical body. The classical laws are
deterministic, they accurately predict the bodys behaviour, and, it seems, they are not
connected with the probability of the micro objects. Nevertheless, Feynman concluded
that QM is more primary than classical mechanics and general relativity, as far as
the fundamental laws of physics can be expressed in the form of PLA [37]. Even the
relationship between symmetry and the laws of conservation, as articulated in Noethers
theorem is based on PLA, which follows from the laws of quantum mechanics [38].
According to Feynman, a classical body, as well as a photon or an electron moves
simultaneously along all possible paths or world lines between initial and final events.
As the phase of quantum amplitude is very high, a set of world lines that makes a
significant contribution to the probability of the bodys detection, reduces to a narrow
bundle. In the limit it contracts to the single world line predicted by the Hamiltons
classical form of PLA [17]. It is like the third method in Section 2.
What Newtonian physics treats as cause and effect (the force producing accelera-
tion), the quantum many paths view treats as a balance of changes in phase produced
by changes in kinetic and potential energy [19]. So classical mechanics and field the-
ory become short-wave approximations of QM, and the action is given the meaning of
the phase of quantum amplitude. It is no longer necessary to use the concept of the
forces acting on the body. It is enough that the body simultaneously passes along
all possible paths from one point to another and selects the path, for which the ac-
tion is minimum [39]. Perhaps, the term select is superfluous in this case, because
the classical trajectory is not selected by the body, but by the rule of addition of the
quantum phases.
According to Taylors figurative expression [17], a stone moving with nonrelativistic
speed in the region of a small space-time curvature obeys natures command: Follow
the path of least action! The stone moving with any possible speed in curved space-
time obeys natures command: Follow the path of maximum aging (or maximum proper
time)! The electron obeys natures command: Explore all paths! [17]. Taylor proposes
a scheme where PLA, on the one hand, is a limiting case of the Principle of Maximal
Aging, on the other hand, a limiting case of Feynmans principle Explore all paths.
In other words, Newtonian mechanics becomes a limiting case and approximation of
general relativity and QM at the same time. I suggest extending Taylors scheme using
his metaphors. My additions are indicated by dashed lines (Fig. 1).
Firstly, the Principle of Maximum Aging could be considered as the limiting case

6
 Principle of
Maximal Aging
RELATIVITY
(Follow world line
of maximal aging.)
Low speed
Weak gravity
All effective
world lines curve The 10-dimensional
NEWTONIAN space-time collapses
and then narrow
MECHANICS and flattens to
Principle of to the world line
(Follow world line 4-dimensional
Least Action of maximum
Of Least Action.) space-time.
aging

As particle mass increases, the

pencil of effective world lines
narrows to the world line of
minimum action.

SUPERSTRING
QUANTUM THEORY
MECHANICS Explore all paths (Follow world tube
(Follows all world of least square)
lines.)

Figure 1: Story line showing the principle of least action sandwiched between relativity and quan-
tum mechanics [17]. In addition relativity becomes the limiting case and approximation of quantum
mechanics.

of Feynmans principle Explore all paths for strong gravity. Under the influence of
massive objects the pencil of the effective world lines of the particle curves. The phases
of all amplitudes added together, so possible world lines reduce to one world line of
maximum aging. Secondly, we could apply natures command, Explore all paths, for
the space-time of any dimensions and curvature. The Principle of Maximum Aging is
applied only for the smooth 4-dimensional space-time. The use of the formalism of QM
for such space-time creates an infinite and even negative probability inevitably. One of
the mathematical solutions of this problem is offered by a theory of superstrings, which
requires extra dimensions [40]. According to this theory, in each point of 4-dimensional
space-time, there are six or more extra collapsed dimensions. If the superstring theory is
true (there is no evidence of this), we can assume that the Principle of Maximum Aging
is also an approximation of the path integral method. When the scale increases, the
n-dimensional space-time collapses and flattens into 4-dimensional one5 . All possible

5
It is assumed that the string moves in space along the world sheet or world tube. To calculate
the trajectory of its movement, we should minimize the analog of paths lengtharea of tube [41].

7
paths of micro objects are stable only in 4-dimensional space-time, therefore, possible
paths in 10-dimensional space-time reduce to the possible paths in 4-dimensional space-
time due to interference. So as well as classical mechanics, general relativity also
becomes the limiting case and approximation of QM.

5 Discussion
We have attempted to combine the languages of physics by means of PLA, in spite
of the philosophical status of PLA is unclear. One of the reasons is a phantom of
final cause. The explanation of PLA by the simplicity and perfection of nature in a
teleological sence does not coordinate with any scientific paradigms. Gradually, PLA
has turned into a pure heuristic rule. The opponents of philosophical interpretations of
PLA were DAlamber, Lagrange, Jacobi, Einstein, Prigogine, and others. Mach found
that the variational principles of mechanics are no more than other mathematical
formulations of Newtonian laws and that they do not contain anything new. However,
he added that modern mathematics did not provide any other method to formulate a
covariant and at the same time a compatible system of field equations [42].
Born wrote that Einsteins law of gravity, which includes Newtonian laws as the
limiting case, could also be derived from PLA. Following Mach, Born emphasized that
extreme descriptions talk not about properties of nature but about our aspiration
for economy of thinking [43]. According to other opinions, PLA does not have only
methodological meaning, but expresses the unity and interconnection of symmetry, the
conservation principles, and causality [44]. PLA does not summarize only the physical
causality, but also regularity, necessity, probability, and connection of states [45]. The
law of conservation of energy, as well as other laws of conservation can be derived from
the action and variational principles [46, 47]. It is believed that QM in Feynmans
form appears as the generalization of classical mechanics [48], and the application of
path integral provides a clear and elegant language, which describes the transition from
classical to quantum physics [49].
Following Euler, Lagrange, and Hamilton, the creators of QM borrowed an optical-
mechanical analogy from geometrical optics (Fermats and Huygenss principles) and
mechanics (Hamiltons principle) [50]. Hilbert and Einstein used the same analogy
when they wrote their equations of general relativity [51]. Perhaps, methodological
convenience is not the sole reason for this analogy. I think that the use of the same
analogy in the different languages points at their common essence.
General relativity is able to unite Newtonian mechanics and the field theory of

8
motions in 4-dimensional space-time with any curvature. However, this language is
not applied to Plancks scale. Only one language successfully works at three levels,
it is the language of PLA. At the level of curved 4-dimensional space-time, Einsteins
equations are equivalent to the Principle of Maximum Aging for free particles and
PLA for gravitational fields. At the classical level, Newtonian and field equations are
equivalent to PLA of free bodies or fields of different types [52]. At the quantum level,
the fields equations are equivalent to the path integral method. The last one, in its
turn, explains why PLA works at all levels. So just the method of Feynman could
answer why quantum, classical, and relativistic objects obey the same principles.
Physics is an amazing science. The same observed result could be obtained within
the framework of four languages with close mathematical precision. Each language is
based on different logical and philosophical grounds. Which one is correct? I think,
this is not the right question, and every language is correct in its own field of nature.
We should formulate another goalto find a method of combining the classical and
relativistic geometric languages with the probabilistic language of QM. I assume that
it could be the new language based on PLA and Feynmans formulation of QM. It has
some advantages.

1. The basic physical theories can be represented as approximations and limiting

cases of this language. We do not need the concept of force, replacing it with
changing phases of quantum amplitudes.

2. This language accounts for the transition from probabilistic to deterministic

causality. It is enough to connect the minimal principles with the concept of
probability.

3. Results predicted by this language correspond to observations of micro, macro

and mega objects, for any speeds and dimensions of space.

4. This language is based on the simple set of notions; it has simple and universal
mathematical toolsthe calculus of variations.

Of course, there are some difficulties with this language. The path integral method
has some problems in the quantum field theory. It is unexplained why PLA in each field
of physics has very different forms. We do not understand the similarities between all
forms of the action. In classical mechanics, the action is the difference between average
kinetic and average potential energy. In general relativity, the action is the proper
time. In QM, the action is the probability amplitude. There are other questions as
well. Why is the action always extremal? Why is any form of the action invariant

9
concerning transformations of space-time? How is the action connected with energy,
space, and time?
However, the main problem of new language is philosophical. Our common sense
protests against the proposed explanation of the essence of phenomena. If PLA is not
the convenient method, and path integral is not only the useful metaphor, as most
physicists belive, then how is it possible that everyday objects locate simultaneously
at different points of space-time? The pfysicists say that it happens virtually, but they
do not explain what it means. Does it happen, really or not? The most radical idea of
the language based on PLA and the path integral method is that any classical objects
explore all possible paths as well as the quantum particles. Due to interference of
their possible paths, classical objects are found in the state or on the path corresponding
to the minimum action. What does the word explore really mean, when applied to
inanimate matter? Feynman did not point at any philosophical sense of his method,
considering it only as a convenient formalism and pointing out its shortcomings [53].
To answer the questions we should accept the logic of QM in Feynmans formulation
for explaining behavior of classical objects; we should revise our views on reality and
causality. Following Heisenberg, Fock [54], Bohm [5], and Popper [55], we should
go back to Aristotles idea about existence as development from possibility into reality
and recognize classical determinism as the limiting case of probabilistic (not statistical)
causality.

6 Conclusion
I assume that the method of path integral, created by R. Feynman for QM, is
able to justify and explain the physical sense of some forms of PLA. For this, it is
enough to replace the classical representation of objects motion along a single and
unique trajectory by simultaneous motions along an infinite set of possible trajectories
or world lines. These motions are described by Feynmans integral over all trajectories.
PLA of classical mechanics can be derived as an approximation from QM laws for
scales much larger than Plancks. At the same time, PLA of classical mechanics is
an approximation of general relativity for low speeds and weak gravity. In addition,
I assume that equations of general relativity could be considered as approximations
of the laws of QM when the intricate multidimensional space-time is collapsing into
smooth 4-dimensional space-time. The axioms of classical and relativistic mechanics
can be considered as necessary consequences of QM. As a result, the equations of the
main fields of physics could be represented as special cases of the equations of QM.

10
 I wish to thank prof. I. Dmitriev for his comments on drafts. My thanks are due
to prof. A. Lipkin and prof. A. Lukyanenko for many useful critical comments and
suggestions.

References
[1] W. Heisenberg. At the source of quantum theory., page 181. Moscow, 2004.
[2] T. Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, page 192. Moscow, 2003.
[3] M. Born. Reason, purpose, and economy in the laws of nature (the minimal principles in physics).
In The Physics in the life of my generation, page 257. Moscow, 1963.
[4] M. Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Wiley, 1974.
[5] D. Bohm. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge, London, 1980.
[6] W. H. Zurek. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev. Mod.
Phys., (75):715, 2003.
[7] Y. Sevalnikov. The Modern Physical Knowledge: In Quest of a new Ontology. PhD thesis, IPh,
Moscow, 2003.
[8] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc. The Quantum Challenge Modern Research on the Foundations of
Quantum Mechanics. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Mass, sec. edition, 2006.
[9] R. Penrose. The Road To Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Moscow-Igevsk,
2007.
[10] R. P. Feynman. The Character of Physical Law, page 154. Science, Moscow, 1987.
[11] W. Heisenberg. At the source of quantum theory., page 269. Moscow, 2004.
[12] A. Einstein. The Collection of scientific works, volume Vol. 1, page 524. Moscow, 1965.
[13] M. Planck. The physical essays, page 95. Moscow, 1925.
[14] A. Eddington. Space, time and gravitation, page 149. Moscow, 2003.
[15] T. A. Moore. In the entry on least-action principle. In Macmillan Encyclopedia of Physics,
volume 2, page 840. Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York, 1996.
[16] J. Hanc, S. Tuleja, and M. Hancova. Simple derivation of newtonian mechanics from the principle
of least action. Am. J. Phys., 71(4):386391, 2003.
[17] E. F. Taylor. A call to action. Am. J. Phys., (71):423, 2003.
[18] C.G. Gray, Karl G., and V.A. Novikov. Progress in classical and quantum variational principles.
Rep. Prog. Phys., (67):159208, 2004.
[19] J. Ogborn and E. F. Taylor. Quantum physics explains newtons laws of motion. Phys. Educ.,
(40):2634, 2005.
[20] C. G. Gray and E. F. Taylor. When action is not least. Am. J. Phys., (75), 2007.
[21] F. Dyson. Advanced Quantum Mechanics. World Scientific, Singapore, 2007.
[22] V. I. Sbitnev. Bohms trajectories and the paradigm of integration along paths. complex lagrangian
mechanics. Quantum Magic, (5-4):4132, 2008.
[23] E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler. Spacetime Physics. Freeman, New York, 1992.
[24] E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler. Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Relativity.
Addison Wesley Longman, San Francisco, 2000.

11
[25] A. Nusser and E. Branchini. On the least action principle in cosmology. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
Soc., (313):587595, 2000.
[26] C. Marchal. How the method of minimization of action avoids singularities. Cel. Mech. and Dyn.
Astr., 83(1-4):325353, 2002.
[27] C.G. Gray and E. Poisson. When action is not least for orbits in general relativity. Am. J. Phys.,
(78), 2010.
[28] R. P. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 6, page 96.
Moscow, 2004.
[29] R. P. Feynman. The Character of Physical Law, page 43. Science, Moscow, 1987.
[30] E. Schrdinger. The basic idea of wave mechanics. In Modern quantum mechanics, page 47.
Leningrad-Moscow, 1934.
[31] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz. The Theoretical Physics., volume 1, page 12. Moscow, 2004.
[32] M. Planck. The Theoretical Physics, page 121. Saint Petersburg, 1911.
[33] C. Lanczos. The Variational Principles of Mechanics, page 314. Moscow, 1965.
[34] R. P. Feynman. The principle of least action in quantum mechanics. In L. M. Brown. and et al.
N. J. Hackensack, editors, Feynmans thesis: new approach to quantum theory. World scientific,
2005.
[35] R. P. Feynman and A. Hibbs. Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, page 41. Moscow, 1968.
[36] J. Ogborn, J. Hanc, and E. F. Taylor. Action on stage: Historical introduction. In The Girep
conference, Modeling in Physics and Physics Education. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2006.
[37] R. P. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 6, page
108. Moscow, 2004.
[38] R. P. Feynman. The Character of Physical Law, page 93. Science, Moscow, 1987.
[39] R. P. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 6, page
111. Moscow, 2004.
[40] B. Greene. The elegant universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ulti-
mate Theory, page 137. Editorial URSS, Moscow, 2005.
[41] D. Gross. The coming revolution in fundamental physics. Technical report, PhIAS, May 2006.
[42] C. Lanczos. The Variational Principles of Mechanics, page 24. Moscow, 1965.
[43] M. Born. Reason, purpose, and economy in the laws of nature (the minimal principles in physics).
In The Physics in the life of my generation, pages 131132. Moscow, 1963.
[44] O. S. Razumovsky. Modern Determinism and Extremal Principles in Physics, page 169. Moscow,
1975.
[45] V. A. Asseev. Extremal Principles in the Natural Sciences and their Philosophical Content, page
182. Leningrad, 1977.
[46] H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and I. Safko. The Classical Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, New York, 2002.
[47] A. J. Brizard. An Introduction to Lagrangian Mechanics. World Scientific, Singapore, 2008.
[48] G. Y. Myakishev. The Dynamical and Statistical Laws in Physics, page 157. Moscow, 1973.
[49] P. Ramon. The Field theory. Modern Introduction. Moscow, 1984.
[50] E. Schrdinger. Quantization as an eigenvalue problem. In L. S. Polak, editor, The Variational
Principles of Mechanics, page 679. Moscow, 1959.
[51] A. Einstein. Hamiltons principle and general relativity theory. In L. S. Polak, editor, The
Variational Principles of Mechanics, page 599. Moscow, 1959.
[52] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz. The Theoretical Physics, volume 2. Moscow, 2003.

12
[53] R. P. Feynman and A. Hibbs. Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, page 377. Moscow, 1968.
[54] V. A. Fock. On the interpretation of quantum mechanics. UFN, LXII(4):469471, 1957.
[55] K. R. Popper. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Routledge, 1992.

13