Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: variational principles have a long and distinguished history in physics . apart from global formulations of physical principles , equivalent to local differential equations , they also are useful to approximate problems too difficult for analytic solutions . in the past century quantum variational calculations have been ubiquitous as an approximate method for the ground state of many difficult systems @xcite . in recent years there has been some progress in using classical variational principles ( action principles ) to approximate the motion of classical systems such as classical molecules . we review recent developments in this area of classical mechanics , although we also overlap with quantum mechanics . in particular we shall also discuss the use of the quantum variational principle for excited states , and the connection to classical action principles .    in classical mechanics , variational principles are often called least action principles , because the quantity subject to variations is traditionally the action . to confuse matters there are two classical actions , corresponding to two main action principles , which are called respectively , hamilton s action @xmath0 and maupertuis action @xmath1 ; these differ from each other ( they are related by a legendre transformation ) , and the notation @xmath2 is not universal ( we follow current usage but in fact some authors use the same symbols reversed @xcite ) . both actions , @xmath3 and @xmath4 , have the same dimensions ( i.e. energy@xmath5time , or angular momentum ) . maupertuis least action principle is the older of the two ( 1744 ) by about a century , and as we shall discuss , it is inconveniently formulated in all textbooks @xcite . for clear statements of these old action principles , see the textbooks by arnold @xcite , goldstein et al @xcite , and sommerfeld @xcite . we shall review these action principles in the next section . some mathematics and notation required to deal with variational problems are summarized in appendix i. the distinguishing feature of variational problems is their character @xcite . one is searching for the which gives a minimum ( or stationary value ) to an integral , as opposed to extrema , where one is searching for the value of the variable which minimizes ( or makes stationary ) a function . of course this dichotomy is not so sharp in practice , as the global problem is equivalent to a differential equation ( the euler - lagrange equation ) which is of course local . the relation has even found its way into modern parlance @xcite : `` think globally , act locally ! '' .    in quantum mechanics , where ( usually ) the aim is for approximations to the energy by choosing a wave - function , one speaks of wave - functions , which are optimized according to a variational principle . in classical action principles , the equivalent notion is that of a or trajectory , which should be optimized in accordance with the action principle . for uniformity we shall talk of in the classical domain , to emphasize the similarity of these ideas . as noted above , maupertuis action principle was formulated in precise form first by euler and lagrange some two and a half centuries ago ; for the history , see the books by yourgrau and mandelstam and by terral @xcite . however , even the formulation of these eminent mathematicians remained problematic , as emphasized by jacobi , who stated in his lectures on dynamics : `` in almost all text - books , even the best , this principle is presented so that it is impossible to understand '' @xcite . to understand at least in part the problem ( see @xcite for a detailed discussion ) , it is sufficient to note that maupertuis principle assumes conservation of energy , whereas a well formulated principle , like hamilton s principle , implies energy conservation . as we shall see , it is possible to reformulate maupertuis principle in a more general form to remedy this problem and also make it more useful in applications @xcite . it should be noted that hamilton s principle does not suffer from any such drawbacks and is useful both conceptually ( to derive equations of motion ) and as a tool for approximations . the reformulated maupertuis principle has the advantage of being closely related to the classical limit of schrdinger s variational principle of wave mechanics , and thereby lends itself easily to semiclassical applications . even though we emphasize two action principles for classical mechanics , it is worth noting that there are many other formulations and reformulations of these principles . for a list of references on this point see ref.@xcite . we note in particular the elegant work of percival in the 1970 s on variational principles for invariant tori ( see ref.@xcite for a review ) . the emphasis on maupertuis and hamilton reflects the two main approaches of mechanics , one based on the lagrangian @xmath6 and the other based on the hamiltonian @xmath7 .    in the above and in section 2 we use the traditional terminology for the variational principles , i.e. `` least '' action principles , but , since jacobi s work it has been recognized @xcite that the action is in fact in general for the true trajectories . this means the first - order variation vanishes , and the action may be a minimum , a maximum or a saddle , depending on the second - order variation @xcite . hence `` stationary '' action principles would be more accurate terminology . similar remarks apply to the general maupertuis and reciprocal variational principles discussed in section 2 .    in sections 2 - 4 we restrict ourselves to conservative holonomic systems . various problems are solved using classical and semiclassical variational methods and some comparisons are made with the results from the quantum variational method for excited states @xcite . in section 5 we discuss nonconservative ( but nondissipative ) systems , and in section 6 we mention briefly particular nonholonomic systems ( which have velocity constraints ) , in connection with relativistic systems . the relations between classical and quantum variational principles ( vp s ) are discussed in section 7 . hamilton s least action principle ( hp ) states that , for a true trajectory of a system , hamilton s action @xmath3 is stationary for trajectories which run from the fixed initial space - time point @xmath8 to the fixed final space - time point @xmath9 ,    @xmath10 where @xmath11 is the duration . here the ( hamilton ) action @xmath3 is the time integral of the lagrangian @xmath12 from the initial point to the final point on the trial trajectory @xmath13 ,    @xmath14 where @xmath13 is the generalized coordinate , @xmath15 the generalized velocity and @xmath16 the time . in practice we choose @xmath17 and @xmath18 for convenience . in general @xmath19 stands for the complete set of independent generalized coordinates @xmath20 , where @xmath21 is the number of degrees of freedom @xcite . @xmath22 the latter convention for the end - positions is also followed below in ( 2.2 ) , ( 2.3 ) , etc . from the action principle ( 2.1 ) one can derive lagrange s equation(s ) for the trajectory , which we shall not do in this review ; see for example @xcite . the reformulated ( or general ) maupertuis least action principle ( gmp ) states that , for a true trajectory maupertuis action @xmath4 is stationary on trajectories with fixed end - positions @xmath23 and @xmath24 and fixed mean energy @xmath25 :    @xmath26 here maupertuis action @xmath4 is given by @xmath27 where @xmath28 is the canonical momentum , and in general @xmath29 stands for @xmath30 . the second form for @xmath4 is valid for normal systems , for which @xmath31 and @xmath32 is quadratic in the @xmath33 s , where @xmath32 is the kinetic energy and @xmath34 the potential energy . the mean energy @xmath25 is the time average of the hamiltonian @xmath35 over the trial trajectory of duration @xmath36 , @xmath37 from the initial position @xmath23 to the final position @xmath24 which are common to all trial trajectories . @xmath38 we use the notation @xmath25 rather than @xmath39 because in the early sections we restrict @xcite ourselves to dynamical variables where the hamiltonian is equal to the energy @xmath40 ; the general case is discussed in note @xcite and later sections . the reciprocal maupertuis principle ( rmp ) , or principle of least ( stationary ) mean energy , is @xmath41    for stationary ( i.e. steady - state or bound ) motions ( periodic , quasiperiodic , chaotic ) ( 2.3 ) is the classical limit @xcite of the schrdinger variational principle of quantum mechanics : @xmath42 , ( see also sec.7 ) . the connection is clear intuitively : for bound motions , in the large quantum number limit the expectation value of the hamiltonian becomes the classical mean energy and the quantum number @xmath43 becomes proportional to the classical action @xmath4 over the motion . this connection enables the rmp to lend itself naturally to semiclassical applications ( sec . 2.3 ) . for periodic and quasiperiodic motions the reciprocal maupertuis principle ( 2.3 ) is equivalent @xcite to percival s principle for invariant tori @xcite . the rmp is , however , more general and is valid for chaotic motions , scattering orbits , arbitrary segments of trajectories , etc . percival s principle has been derived by klein and co - workers from matrix mechanics @xcite in the classical limit . hamilton s principle also has a reciprocal version @xcite - see next section . for a summary of reciprocity in variational calculus , see appendix i.    the textbook euler - lagrange version of maupertuis principle differs from ( 2.2 ) ; the constraint of fixed mean energy @xmath25 is replaced by one of fixed energy @xmath44 , @xmath45    this is not erroneous , since a true trajectory does indeed conserve energy , but it is the source of the inconveniences referred to by jacobi @xcite . because , as we show in the next section , the gmp is equivalent to the hp , and therefore to the equations of motion from which energy conservation follows , it will become clear that energy conservation is a consequence of the gmp ( 2.2 ) , rather than an assumption as in the original mp ( 2.4 ) . it is well known that conservation of energy is a consequence of symmetry under time translation ( noether s theorem ) , either via the lagrangian and equations of motion @xcite , or from the action and hamilton s principle @xcite . similarly energy conservation can be derived directly from the gmp @xcite .    in the early sections we assume @xmath31 and that @xmath34 is time - independent ( conservative ) . later these restrictions are relaxed ( see sections 5 and 6 ) . within mechanics one can show that different action principles such as ( 2.1 ) , ( 2.2 ) and ( 2.3 ) are equivalent to each other . this we sketch below ( see @xcite for more details ) . alternatively , one can show @xcite from hamilton s principle ( 2.1 ) that the lagrange equations of motion , in some coordinates are essentially newton s equations in the same set of coordinates . reference @xcite shows that ( 2.4 ) is equivalent to newton s equations , quoting an argument due to lagrange , and in @xcite we derive ( 2.3 ) from similar arguments . on a more lofty level one can derive the action principles from quantum mechanics in the classical limit . dirac and feynman @xcite have derived hamilton s principle from a path integral formulation of quantum mechanics , and similarly the rmp ( 2.3 ) can be derived from wave mechanics ( see @xcite ) . further connections between quantum and classical variational principles are given in sec . the equivalence of hamilton s principle ( 2.1 ) with the general maupertuis principle ( 2.2 ) is worth spelling out in a little more detail . ( the equivalence of the mp with the gmp is discussed in appendix ii ) . the starting point of the derivation is the legendre transformation between the lagrangian of the system and the corresponding hamiltonian ,    @xmath46 here @xmath47 runs over the various degrees of freedom , and @xmath19 stands for @xmath48 and @xmath49 for @xmath50 . upon integration over time along a trial trajectory starting at @xmath51 and ending at @xmath52 ( where we could have @xmath53 for a closed trajectory ) , and with the definitions given above we obtain    @xmath54 where @xmath36 is the duration along the trial trajectory . thus @xmath4 and @xmath3 are also related by a legendre transformation . if we now vary the trial trajectory and the duration @xmath36 , keeping @xmath23 and @xmath24 fixed , and compute the variation of the different terms in ( 2.6 ) , we obtain    @xmath55    which is the relation between the different variations . for conservative systems , near a true trajectory hamilton s principle is equivalent to the vanishing of the left hand side . in fact a vanishing left hand side is the unconstrained form @xcite of hamilton s principle ( the uhp - see @xcite for proof ) : @xmath56 where we have used the fact @xmath57 a true trajectory for conservative systems . eq ( 2.8 ) has the unconstrained form @xmath58 , with @xmath59 ( the energy of the true trajectory ) a constant lagrange multiplier . for fixed @xmath36 ( i.e. @xmath60 ) , we recover the hp @xmath61 , and for fixed @xmath3 ( i.e. @xmath62 ) we obtain the reciprocal hamilton principle ( rhp )    @xmath63    the rhp ( principle of least time ) is discussed in detail in ref.@xcite . the right hand side of ( 2.7 ) ( which therefore must also vanish near a true trajectory ) gives the unconstrained form of maupertuis principle ( ump ) for conservative systems : @xmath64    this has the unconstrained form @xmath65 , with @xmath66 ( the duration of the true trajectory ) a constant lagrange multiplier . for fixed @xmath67 ( 2.10 ) gives the gmp of equation ( 2.2 ) while for fixed @xmath4 it gives the reciprocal , the rmp of equation ( 2.3 ) . an alternative derivation of the ump ( 2.10 ) is given in ref.@xcite with traditional variational procedures , employing the general first variation theorem of variational calculus , which includes end - point variations @xcite . equation ( 2.7 ) connecting the different variations is reminiscent of equations of thermodynamics , where two conditions are derived from a single equation . there are many other analogies with thermodynamics , e.g. two actions in mechanics analogous to two free energies in thermodynamics , with a legendre transform relation in each case @xcite , adiabatic processes and reversible processes in both mechanics and thermodynamics , and reciprocal variational principles in both mechanics and thermodynamics ( see appendix i ) . beginning with helmholtz @xcite , many of these analogies have been explored by various authors @xcite . as we have stressed , we hold the end - positions @xmath23 and @xmath24 fixed in all the variational principles discussed above . it is possible to relax these constraints by generalizing further the uhp and ump ( see notes @xcite , @xcite , and @xcite ) , but we shall not need these generalizations for the applications we discuss . the derivation we have sketched shows that the four principles ( 2.1 ) , ( 2.2 ) , ( 2.3 ) , ( 2.9 ) are equivalent to each other . mathematically , the hamilton principles can be regarded as legendre transformations of the maupertuis principles , since the legendre transformation relation @xmath68 allows us to change independent variables from @xmath69 to @xmath36 . thus in classical mechanics we have a set of four variational principles that are symmetric under legendre and reciprocal transformations :    @xmath70 + after a short interlude on action principles in semiclassical mechanics we proceed to discuss some simple examples . the rmp ( 2.3 ) is the basis of a very simple semiclassical quantization method . as we shall see , the solution of ( 2.3 ) yields , for the true trajectory or approximations to it , @xmath25 as a function of the action @xmath4 , @xmath71 . for bound motions we then assume the standard einstein - brillouin - keller ( ebk ) @xcite quantization rule for the action over a cycle @xmath72 where @xmath73 , @xmath74 is essentially the morse - maslov index ( e.g. @xmath75 for a harmonic oscillator ) , and @xmath76 is planck s constant . ( ebk ( or torus ) quantization is the generalization of bohr - sommerfeld - wilson quantization from separable to arbitrary integrable systems ) . thus we have expressed @xmath25 as a function of the quantum number @xmath43 , @xmath77 . for multidimensional systems , ( 2.11 ) is applied to each action @xmath78 in @xmath79 , so that we get @xmath80 as a function of the quantum numbers @xmath81 . this method has been found to be reasonably accurate even for nonintegrable systems , where strictly speaking the good actions @xmath78 do not exist . the ump ( 2.10 ) can also be used to obtain semiclassical expressions for @xmath80 . examples are given later in sections 4.1 - 4.3 . here we discuss how to use variational principles to solve practical problems . we use the so - called direct method @xcite of the calculus of variations ( e.g. rayleigh - ritz ) , which operates directly with the variational principle and makes no use of the associated euler - lagrange differential equation . historically @xcite , the method originates with euler , hamilton , rayleigh , ritz and others ( see @xcite for some early references).we assume a trial solution , which contains one or more adjustable parameters @xmath82 . we then use the variational principle to optimize the choice of the @xmath82 . generally speaking , the more parameters @xmath82 , the better the solution . the direct method is well known in quantum mechanics , but is also very useful in classical mechanics , as we shall see . we give a few simple examples in this section , mainly for bound motions ; further simple examples , including for scattering problems , are given in refs . @xcite and in the references therein . the simplest example is the free motion of a particle of unit mass on the line segment @xmath83 to @xmath84 . with the traditional maupertuis principle ( 2.4 ) once we fix the energy @xmath85 there is essentially nothing left to vary . with the gmp ( 2.2 ) or its reciprocal ( 2.3 ) we can choose a variety of trial trajectories . for example we can take velocity @xmath86 on the sub - segment @xmath87 and velocity @xmath88 on the sub - segment @xmath89 . the action @xmath4 is @xmath90 and the mean energy @xmath25 is @xmath91 , where we can vary @xmath86 to change @xmath4 while keeping the mean energy fixed . we then find that @xmath92 , a simple example of energy conservation for this particular trial trajectory . by iteration we can now see that energy is conserved for the whole trajectory on the segment @xmath93 , as a consequence of the general maupertuis principle ( 2.2 ) . an instructive example is the one - dimensional ( 1d ) quartic oscillator , with hamiltonian    @xmath94 using a harmonic oscillator trial trajectory with @xmath95 we find for a complete cycle with period @xmath96    @xmath97    @xmath98    from ( 3.3 ) , with the use of the rmp ( 2.3 ) we can obtain the  best " frequency @xmath99 solving @xmath100 , which can be substituted into ( 3.3 ) to obtain @xmath25 @xmath101^{1/3 } , \;\;\ ;   \bar{e } = \frac{1}{2}(c/{m^2})^{1/3 } ( { 3 w}/{4 \pi})^{4/3 } \eqno(3.4)\ ] ] and the period @xmath36 as a function of mean energy : @xmath102^{1/4}. \eqno(3.5)\ ] ] this variational estimate for the period is in error by @xmath103 when compared with the exact result , as noted in reference @xcite . systematic improvements can be obtained by including terms @xmath104 , @xmath105 , etc . , in the trial trajectory @xmath106 ; see @xcite for a related example . we have used the rmp @xmath107 here since ( 3.3 ) made it very convenient to do so . the gmp @xmath108 and the hp are also viable for this problem , but the original mp @xmath109 is not , since the constraint of fixed @xmath44 leaves essentially no freedom for variation for 1d problems @xcite . one can get around this by relaxing the constraint via a lagrange multiplier , but this is then equivalent to the gmp ( see app . ii ) or the ump . in 2d etc . , the constraint of fixed @xmath44 does allow some freedom for variation , but the constraint is very cumbersome and the gmp is always much more convenient .    the use of the action principle ( 2.3 ) to obtain the mean energy as a function of the action ( 3.4 ) or the period as a function of mean energy ( 3.5 ) , with harmonic oscillator trial trajectories , is very similar to the use of the variational principle in quantum mechanics to estimate the energies of states of the quartic oscillator with harmonic oscillator trial wave - functions . we show this explicitly for the eigenstates of the hamiltonian ( 3.1 ) . in both cases an optimum frequency for the trial harmonic case is sought and the final errors are also similar . we start by computing the quantum expectation value of ( 3.1 ) using a harmonic oscillator state with trial frequency @xmath110 , @xmath111 and find the optimum frequency @xmath99 by demanding the vanishing of the derivative of @xmath112 with respect to the frequency . we substitute this frequency in ( 3.6 ) to estimate the energy of excited states    @xmath113    taking the asymptotic limit of ( 3.7 ) for @xmath114 and replacing @xmath115 by @xmath4 we obtain the second equation ( 3.4 ) . this is not as trivial as it seems , since ( 3.7 ) was obtained from the quantum variational principle ( for an arbitrary state @xcite ) , while ( 3.4 ) was obtained from a classical action principle . this example illustrates neatly that the two variational principles are related : the reciprocal maupertuis principle is the classical limit of the schrdinger variational principle ( see sec.7 for further discussion ) . the example illustrates also that the classical action principle can be used as a method of approximation , and semiclassically to estimate @xmath116 as described in sec.2.3 . according to ( 2.11 ) , we quantize @xmath117 in ( 3.4 ) semiclassically by the replacement @xmath118 ; as just discussed , this leads to agreement asymptotically ( @xmath119 ) with the quantum result ( 3.7 ) . reference @xcite discusses the similar relation between quantum and classical variations for a different one - dimensional system , with a linear potential . the application of classical action principles to other simple systems is discussed in reference @xcite . the application of quantum variations for excited states has a long history : the earliest reference is mcweeny and coulson , who applied it to the quartic oscillator described above @xcite more than fifty years ago ( for later references see @xcite ) .      for a pendulum with two degrees of freedom ( @xmath120 ) , there is an additional term in the kinetic energy compared to that of a plane pendulum , i.e. @xmath121 where @xmath122 is the polar angle ( measured from the downward vertical axis ) and @xmath123 is the azimuthal angle , @xmath124 is the bob mass , @xmath6 the length , and @xmath125 the gravitational acceleration .    using the axial symmetry around the @xmath126 ( vertical ) axis , we introduce the cylindrical coordinate @xmath127 , and the angular momentum component @xmath128 , which is a constant of the motion . we also expand @xmath129 , keeping up to quartic terms , which are @xmath130 . this gives @xmath131 where @xmath132 . with two degrees of freedom and two constants of the motion ( @xmath133 and the energy ) , the system is integrable . if the quartic terms are neglected in ( 3.9 ) by assuming @xmath134 , the @xmath135 or @xmath136 motion is that of a 2d isotropic harmonic oscillator with frequency @xmath99 . in particular , an elliptical orbit , with semiaxes @xmath137 and @xmath138 , is fixed in space , and the motion is periodic . if the quartic terms are not negligible , the oscillator frequency shifts from @xmath99 to a lower value @xmath110 , as in the plane pendulum case , where @xmath139 and the orbit precesses in the prograde sense with frequency @xmath140 , where @xmath141 the motion is now in general quasiperiodic . the precession is one of the major sources of error to be eliminated in the design of foucault pendula @xcite . ( the foucault pendulum is discussed in sec . because the precession rate is @xmath130 , this precession is particularly relevant for recently developed short foucault pendula , which are less than 1 m in length . equations ( 3.10 ) and ( 3.11 ) have been derived by perturbation theory @xcite . to derive ( 3.10 ) and ( 3.11 ) variationally @xcite , we first choose a trial trajectory ; we take an ellipse which is closed in the coordinate system @xmath142 which rotates with respect to the fixed @xmath143 system with the ( unknown ) precession frequency @xmath140 . in the @xmath142 system we therefore have @xmath144 and @xmath145 , where @xmath110 may differ from @xmath99 . because the @xmath142 and @xmath146 systems differ by a rotation , we have @xmath147 , and therefore our trial trajectory in the fixed coordinate system is @xmath148    to apply the maupertuis principles , we calculate the action @xmath4 and mean energy @xmath25 over one period @xmath149 of the rotating ellipse , @xmath150 where @xmath151 denotes a time average over one period , and @xmath32 and @xmath34 are given by ( 3.9 ) . the averages of the terms in ( 3.9 ) are easily calculated using ( 3.12 ) , which gives @xmath152 @xmath153 @xmath154    the precession frequency @xmath140 can be related to the angular momentum using @xmath155 , and @xmath156 from ( 3.14 ) , giving @xmath157        as initial and final positions 1 and 2 ( see fig.1 ) , we take two successive aphelia at @xmath158 , i.e. @xmath159 and @xmath160 , where @xmath161.the positions 1 and 2 and hence @xmath137 and @xmath162 are thus fixed , which leaves @xmath138 and @xmath110 available as variational parameters . note that ( 3.15 ) then implies that @xmath133 is varied with the trial trajectory ( although it is a constant of the motion on the individual trial trajectories ) . we find it easiest to use the unconstrained version of the maupertuis principles [ i.e. the ump ( 2.10 ) ] , @xmath163 , where @xmath164 is the time to reach position 2 from position 1 . thus we use @xmath165 where , choosing units such that @xmath166 , @xmath167 , @xmath168 , we have from ( 3.13 ) to ( 3.15 ) @xmath169 @xmath170 and @xmath171    the first of the variational equations ( 3.16 ) is satisfied identically by ( 3.17 ) and ( 3.18 ) , and gives no useful information . from the second , setting @xmath172 , where @xmath173 is the frequency shift , and retaining terms only to second order in @xmath137 and @xmath138 , i.e. , @xmath130 in general units , we get the condition @xmath174    when @xmath175 , ( 3.19 ) gives @xmath176 as it should [ recall the plane pendulum result @xcite ] . by symmetry , @xmath173 must reduce to @xmath177 when @xmath178 . this requires that @xmath179 in ( 3.19 ) , and from this result we then get @xmath180 from ( 3.19 ) . when we restore the dimensional quantities @xmath99 and @xmath6 , these results agree with ( 3.10 ) and ( 3.11 ) , so that with a harmonic oscillator trial trajectory , the variational method gives results correct to @xmath130 . hamilton s principle can also be applied to this problem . here , we need the hamilton action @xmath181 , where @xmath36 ( and hence @xmath110 ) is now fixed , in addition to the positions 1 and 2 ( and hence @xmath137 and @xmath162 ) . this leaves @xmath138 available as a variational parameter , and setting @xmath182 leads to the same results as above . more complicated examples are easy to find , and are especially interesting in multidimensional systems which exhibit chaotic motion . such systems are nonintegrable , and have fewer constants of the motion than the number of degrees of freedom . we illustrate the use of classical and semiclassical variational principles together with the application of quantum variational principles to excited states . the 2d @xmath184 oscillator is a simple example of this class , which has been studied in the literature for some time ( see , e.g. @xcite ) . there is only one constant of the motion , the energy . classically , most trajectories in this system are chaotic @xcite . fig.2 shows the contours of the @xmath184 potential , and fig.3 shows a typical ( chaotic ) classical trajectory .    . the darkened contour corresponds to @xmath185 . ( from ref.@xcite ) ]    -axis . the trajectory eventually reverses its @xmath186-direction and returns to the vicinity of the origin before entering another arm of the potential . ( from ref.@xcite ) ]    refs.@xcite give classical and semiclassical discussions of the motion using the rmp . here we discuss the quantum states using variational methods for the excited states , as done above for a simpler example . comparison with the semiclassical results is given later . the hamiltonian is    @xmath187 we choose units where @xmath166 and @xmath188 , where @xmath189 is the potential . below we also choose @xmath190 . we take as an approximation a separable trial wave - function @xmath191 @xmath192 where the wave - function @xmath193 is an eigenstate of a harmonic oscillator with frequency @xmath194 : @xmath195    the frequencies @xmath194 and @xmath196 are variational parameters , which will differ from state to state , and as a result the set ( 4.2 ) is nonorthogonal . the computation of matrix elements and expectation values with the wave functions ( 4.3 ) is rather easy ,    @xmath197 and therefore the expectation value of the hamiltonian ( 4.1 ) with the wave - functions ( 4.2 ) is @xmath198 . \eqno(4.5)\ ] ] we then find the best frequencies @xmath194 and @xmath196 by setting to zero the partial derivatives of @xmath112 with respect to the two @xmath110 s to obtain the frequency conditions    @xmath199 from which we obtain    @xmath200 eqs . ( 4.7 ) and ( 4.3 ) show that at the variational minimum the ratio of the two frequencies is rational and the mean energy of the @xmath186-oscillator is the same as the mean energy of the @xmath201-oscillator . it follows immediately that the mean kinetic energies of the two oscillators are also equal to each other at the variational minimum : @xmath202 . from ( 4.6 ) we also find @xmath203^{1/3 } , \eqno(4.8)\ ] ] which gives the separate frequencies    @xmath204 and the variational estimate for the energy : @xmath205^{2/3}. \eqno(4.10)\ ] ] therefore the variational states are labelled by the two integers @xmath206 and @xmath207 and the energy at high quantum numbers increases as the two thirds power of their product . the estimate ( 4.10 ) can also be obtained semiclassically by using the rmp to find @xmath208 , and then quantizing the actions @xmath78 with the ebk relation ( 2.11 ) ; see ref.@xcite for a detailed discussion . it is to be noted that this method yields the quite reasonable first approximation ( 4.10 ) for @xmath209 despite the fact that strictly speaking the good actions @xmath210 and @xmath211 do not exist for the @xmath184 oscillator . in essence , one is approximating a chaotic trajectory by a quasiperiodic one , and the rmp picks out the best such trial trajectory @xcite . the estimate ( 4.10 ) differs only in the leading coefficient , 3/2 vs. 1.405 , from a semiclassical adiabatic formula ( sca ) obtained by martens et al @xcite . the difference between the two estimates is about @xmath212 . as noted by martens et al @xcite formula ( 4.10 ) gives rise to degeneracies . for example @xmath213 = ( 7,0 ) , ( 0,7 ) , ( 2,1 ) , ( 1,2 ) give the same energies - a four - fold degeneracy . however , numerical estimates of the first 50 energy levels , obtained in @xcite , do not show such high degeneracies . also , because the symmetry group of the hamiltonian @xmath214 ( a fourfold axis of rotation , and four reflection planes ) has only one- and two - dimensional irreducible representations @xcite , we expect at most two - fold degeneracy . we shall see that the basis ( 4.2 ) permits an evaluation of the splitting of these spurious degeneracies . the pattern of degeneracies is easy to understand if the bracket is rewritten @xmath215 = n/4,\ ] ] where the number @xmath216 ( theprincipal " quantum number ) , is an odd integer . the degeneracy pattern is determined by the decomposition of @xmath216 into prime factors . for example @xmath213=(2,1 ) corresponds to @xmath216 = 15 which can be factored as @xmath217 , @xmath218 , @xmath219 , @xmath220 and these products correspond to ( 7,0 ) etc . if @xmath216 is a prime number there are only two states , corresponding to @xmath221 and @xmath222 , while every nontrivial factorization of a nonprime @xmath216 allows further states . the integer @xmath216 belongs to one of two possible classes : @xmath223 or @xmath224 . for the case @xmath225 ( e.g. @xmath216 = 15 ) one of @xmath226 is even and the other is odd . this class of states eo and oe ( of @xcite ) corresponds to the two dimensional irreducible representation of @xmath214 . for @xmath227 ( e.g. @xmath216=21 ) the two quantum numbers @xmath228 are both even or both odd ( e.g. @xmath228 = ( 10,0 ) or ( 0,10 ) or ( 1,3 ) or ( 3,1 ) for @xmath216=21 , which is therefore four - fold degenerate ) this degeneracy is split into states of symmetry eee , eeo , ooe and ooo , in the notation of martens et al @xcite for the one dimensional irreducible representations . in this notation the first two letters give respectively the parity ( even or odd ) of @xmath206 and @xmath207 ( or equivalently the behaviour of the wave - function under the reflections ( @xmath229 , @xmath230 ) , while the third letter stands for the behavior under the interchange of @xmath186 with @xmath201 . we discuss later the splitting of degeneracies resulting from the expression ( 4.10 ) . at this point we wish only to note that the degeneracy grows very slowly with @xmath216 , like lnln@xmath216 , and even for @xmath216 quite large where quasiclassical behaviour is expected ( say @xmath231 ) the typical number of degenerate states is quite modest , 4 - 6 . the main points of discussion arising from the result ( 4.10 ) are the splitting of the degenerate levels , perturbative corrections to the variational energies , and the density of states implied by this formula . for the first fifty low lying states one has the accurate numerical estimates of martens et al @xcite with which to compare . we can improve the variational result ( 4.10 ) if we rewrite the hamiltonian @xmath7 ( 4.1 ) in the form @xmath232 here , the perturbation @xmath34 is the last term above , and its effect is already included in first order , in the variational estimate ( 4.10 ) . therefore the first correction comes in second order in @xmath34 . we must also remember that that the frequencies @xmath233 are appropriate to a fixed pair of quantum numbers @xmath213 , and change if we go to a different pair . the simplest way to do perturbation theory in these circumstances is to estimate corrections to each state @xmath213 by considering a set of orthogonal intermediate states @xmath234 all with the same frequency @xmath233 appropriate to the state @xmath213 which we consider . therefore we take the second order correction    @xmath235}. \eqno(4.12)\ ] ]    due to the form of @xmath34 ( quadratic in the coordinates @xmath143 ) , we must have @xmath236 or @xmath237 or @xmath238 for nonzero contributions and similarly for @xmath239 . it is an interesting property of the variational solution that only intermediate states with both @xmath240 different from @xmath206 and @xmath239 different from @xmath207 give nonvanishing contributions , because of the frequency conditions . this can be seen from an evaluation of matrix elements with only one quantum number different , for example @xmath241 , but @xmath242 . then one finds    @xmath243 , \eqno(4.12^{'})\ ] ] and the bracket on the right hand side vanishes because of ( 4.6 ) . only the perturbation @xmath244 contributes to nonvanishing matrix elements . there are only four intermediate states which contribute : @xmath245 , where @xmath246 , etc . therefore ( 4.12 ) becomes after a little computation @xmath247 and @xmath248^{2/3 } , \eqno(4.14)\ ] ] where @xmath249 denotes a second - order shift and @xmath250 denotes the energy up to the second - order . therefore , in second - order perturbation theory , the coefficient @xmath251 is diminished by about @xmath252 to 1.437 , closer to the adiabatic result 1.405 of martens et al @xcite . the remaining difference is about @xmath253 . the degeneracies of ( 4.14 ) are still the same as those of ( 4.10 ) . if we apply perturbation theory to the ground state @xmath254 we find    @xmath255 the sequence ( 4.15 ) indicates that the perturbation expansion does not converge , and it is a good idea to stop at second order . the accurate numerical result for @xmath256 ( from @xcite ) is 0.5541 , which shows that stopping at second order gives an error of about @xmath257 for the ground state . some examples of the estimates @xmath258 , and @xmath259 are given in table 1 , and compared with numerical estimates from @xcite , for a set of states which are also relevant to the next section . * table 1 *    [ cols="^,^,^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]      comparison of selected energy levels calculated via quantum and semiclassical methods demonstrating the failure of the simple variational calculation to produce level splitting observed in the quantum results.(from ref.@xcite ) in this section we consider nonconservative mechanical systems . for example consider a system of particles moving in the time - dependent external field , or a system whose parameters depend explicitly on time . other examples include time - dependent constraints , e.g. a bead on a rotating hoop whose angular velocity is a prescribed function of time , and variable mass systems ( for which @xmath260 in general @xcite ) . such systems are not closed and the energy is not conserved . the evolution of a nonconservative system is completely determined by a time - dependent lagrangian @xmath261 or by a time - dependent hamiltonian @xmath262 . ( we exclude dissipative systems from our discussion . we do note that lagrangians and hamiltonians have been found for such systems in some cases @xcite , so that the action principles discussed here would apply in these cases . alternatively @xcite , dissipative terms can be added to the lagrange equations of motion or to the hamilton principle . ) @xmath7 and @xmath6 are related to each other by the legendre transformation ( see eq . ( 2.5 ) )    @xmath263 locally these lead to the usual euler - lagrange or hamilton equations of motion that govern the dynamics of the system . we consider the global description of nonconservative systems . it is well known that the hamilton principle @xmath264 is applicable for nonconservative systems as well as for conservative ones . here subscript @xmath36 reminds us that variations near the actual path are constrained by fixing the travel time @xmath36 from the initial point @xmath265 to the final point @xmath52 . again we have chosen @xmath266 and @xmath267 , and , as before , it is understood here and below that the end - positions @xmath23 and @xmath24 are also fixed . as before , we can relax the constraint of fixed @xmath36 and rewrite ( 5.2)@xcite as an unconstrained hamilton principle ( uhp ) @xmath268    where the lagrange multiplier @xmath269 is the true value of the energy at the time of arrival at the final point @xmath270 . ( elsewhere in this paper @xmath269 is denoted variously as @xmath271 , @xmath272 or @xmath273 ; see notes @xcite and @xcite ) . we assume that all trial trajectories start at the same time @xmath274 and also have the same end positions @xmath23 and @xmath24 . using eq.(2.7 ) , which is derived from ( 5.1 ) as before , we transform the uhp ( 5.3 ) to the form    @xmath275\delta{t } = 0 . \eqno(5.4)\ ] ]    this is the unconstrained maupertuis principle ( ump ) for nonconservative systems , which seems not to have been given in the literature explicitly ( it is implicit in an appendix in @xcite - see also @xcite ) . it relates three variations - the variation of mean energy @xmath276 , the variation of the action @xmath4 and the variation of the travel time @xmath36 . the lagrange multipliers are the true travel time @xmath36 and the difference of energy and mean energy of the true trajectory at the final point , @xmath277 $ ] . the latter can be rewritten as    @xmath278= < t\frac{\partial h}{\partial t } > , \eqno(5.5)\ ] ] where the bar and brackets @xmath279 both denote a time average over the interval ( 0,t ) . the generalized ump ( 5.4 ) can also be derived by traditional variational procedures ( @xcite , eq.(a.6 ) ) . one can derive constrained principles from ( 5.4 ) as before , e.g. @xmath280 , but these would be complicated to use in practice because of the severe constraints on the trial trajectories . the version @xmath281 is closest to the original maupertuis principle . the constrained principle @xmath282\right)_{e(0),e(t)}=0\ ] ] is mentioned by whittaker @xcite , and is easily derived from ( 5.4 ) and ( 5.5 ) . but since ( 5.4 ) is also valid without fixing @xmath283 and @xmath269 , ( 5.4 ) is more convenient . formally the unconstrained maupertuis principle ( 5.4 ) is equivalent to the hamilton principle , but it also appears too complicated to be useful in practice . this is not quite true and we demonstrate how the ump can be used for adiabatic perturbations .      for simplicity we start with a one - dimensional periodic system that depends on a parameter @xmath284 . let @xmath284 vary with time adiabatically , i.e. the change @xmath285 during a period of oscillation @xmath36 . it is well known that in this case the energy @xmath44 as well as the period of oscillation @xmath36 depend slightly on time , but the action @xmath286 over a cycle , where    @xmath287    remains constant to an excellent approximation ( adiabatic invariant ) when the parameter @xmath284 varies . consider what kind of information can be extracted from the ump ( 5.4 ) . both the energy @xmath44 and the period @xmath36 of an actual motion are functions of the action @xmath286 ( recall the action - angle variables ) : @xmath288 , @xmath289 . consider two actual trajectories with actions @xmath286 and @xmath290 as two trial trajectories for the ump ( 5.4 ) . then the variational equation can be rewritten as a differential equation    @xmath291    it is more convenient to rewrite this in terms of the frequency @xmath292 , @xmath293    this equation generalizes the standard relation @xcite for integrable conservative systems @xmath294 to integrable nonconservative systems .    up to this point ( 5.7 ) and ( 5.8 ) are general and valid for any nonconservative system for which a good action can be defined . consider now the adiabatic regime where the variation of the parameter @xmath295 over the short period @xmath36 , @xmath296 , is much less than the parameter itself : @xmath297 . in this case @xmath298    where the averaging @xmath299 is to be performed at a fixed value of @xmath300 since @xmath301 varies little over a period @xmath36 . the action @xmath286 is conserved for any given parameter @xmath301 , and hence the derivative @xmath302 is also a constant of the motion . as a result in this approximation we get    @xmath303    in the same approximation we have for @xmath304 in ( 5.8 ) @xmath305    thus to the first order approximation in @xmath306 we can rewrite ( 5.8 ) as    @xmath307[\frac { d}{di } ( \frac{1}{\omega^{(0)}}\frac{\partial e}{\partial \lambda})-   \frac{\partial e}{\partial \lambda}\frac{d}{di } ( \frac{1}{\omega^{(0)}})],\ ] ] or finally as    @xmath308 here @xmath309 is the zero - order term , and @xmath310 is the variation of the parameter @xmath301 during the given period . we get corrections ( of the first - order in the nonadiabaticity parameter @xmath311 ) to the frequency of oscillation , for adiabatic systems . the result seems very simple . it appears that @xmath312 is a continuous function of time @xmath16 and we calculate some average frequency over the period . but actually @xmath312 is not always a continuous function of time ; it is a parameter of a ( slightly ) aperiodic system . thus ( 5.10 ) is nontrivial in general .    to illustrate these results it is instructive to consider a simple exactly solvable example . we consider the 1d motion of a perfectly elastic ball of mass @xmath124 bouncing between two planes . we suppose that one plane is fixed and the other is slowly moving with constant velocity @xmath313 . we suppose also that the planes are heavy enough so that they are unaffected by collisions with the ball . the distance between the two planes @xmath314 is the adiabatic parameter . let us define a as the motion of the ball from the fixed plane to the moving plane , collision , and the motion of the ball in the backward direction up to the collision with the fixed plane . the n-@xmath315 cycle can be described in the following way . at time @xmath316 ( beginning of the cycle ) the ball has velocity @xmath317 , and the distance between planes is @xmath318 . at time @xmath319 the ball collides with the moving plane and after the collision it moves to the fixed plane with velocity @xmath320 ( the collision with the fixed plane is elastic and the backward velocity is equal to the forward velocity after collision , i.e. @xmath321 ) . the backward motion takes time @xmath322 . the period of the whole cycle is @xmath323 . at time @xmath324 ( the initial time for ( n+1)-th cycle ) the distance between the two planes is equal to @xmath325 . this means that @xmath326 is an exact ( adiabatic ) invariant . it easy to see that the action @xmath286 is proportional to this invariant , @xmath327 i.e. the action @xmath286 is an exact ( adiabatic ) invariant for our special initial condition @xcite .    in terms of the action @xmath286 and the adiabatic parameter @xmath6 the complete set of relevant quantities is as follows :    @xmath328 @xmath329 ^ 2,\ ] ] @xmath330    i.e. @xmath331 is linear function of the nonadiabaticity parameter @xmath332 and the approximate relation ( 5.10 ) must be exact here . indeed , we have @xmath333 , @xmath334 and @xmath335 thus the approximate relation ( 5.10 ) is valid here . it is also not difficult to check after a little algebra that in the exact relation ( 5.8 ) all higher powers of @xmath313 cancel each other and the linear approximation is exact . if @xmath336 is not extremely small , @xmath286 ceases to be an adiabatic invariant and the system becomes nonintegrable . if @xmath337 is varied nonadiabatically and periodically around @xmath338 , the system ( termed the fermi model @xcite ) can show steady energy growth and chaotic motion .    the generalization of ( 5.10 ) to multidimensional integrable systems with actions @xmath339, ... ,@xmath340 is evident , as is the generalization to multiparameter systems , with parameters @xmath341 . the @xmath342 corrections in @xmath312 have been derived by other methods @xcite , but in different forms from ( 5.10 ) . if we assume @xmath295 is periodic , with a long period @xmath343 , the @xmath342 terms in @xmath312 , when integrated over @xmath344 , define the @xmath345 , the classical analogue of the quantum berry phase @xcite . the hannay angle is the extra ( geometric ) phase undergone by the system in one cycle of @xmath295 , in addition to the more obvious dynamical phase @xmath346 obtained by integrating the instantaneous frequency @xmath347 . in general one requires more than one @xmath301-type parameter to obtain a nonvanishing result for @xmath345 , but hannay and berry and coworkers give a few examples @xcite where one parameter suffices . we discuss two examples with nonvanishing @xmath345 . consider a bead of mass @xmath124 sliding without friction on a closed planar wire loop which is slowly rotating with angular velocity @xmath140 in the horizontal plane . for a loop of arbitrary shape , hannay and berry @xcite show that the hannay angle @xmath345 defined above is given by @xmath348 , where @xmath349 is the area and @xmath6 the perimeter of the loop . for a circular loop rotating about an axis perpendicular to the plane of the loop and through the center , @xmath345 is simply @xmath350 , as is clear intuitively : the `` starting line '' for the particle moves ahead by @xmath351 while the particle rapidly slides around the loop . plane with angular velocity @xmath352 about axis through @xmath353 perpendicular to the @xmath143 plane . at @xmath316 , the particle starts with @xmath354 and the rotating @xmath355 axis ( a diameter ) coincides with the fixed axis @xmath186.,width=226 ]    we consider a circular loop of radius @xmath356 ( fig.8 ) , but with the vertical axis of rotation through a point @xmath353 on the wire instead of the center @xmath357 of the loop , to make the answer less obvious . the adiabatic parameter here is the prescribed orientation of the loop @xmath295 , where @xmath358 is small . we do not at this stage assume @xmath359 is constant .    using the horizontal @xmath360 lab - frame ( fig.8 ) , we can easily write the lagrangian , which is just the lab kinetic energy of the particle . using @xmath122 in fig.8 as the generalized coordinate we find    @xmath361 \;\ ; . \eqno(5.11)\ ] ] from ( 5.11 ) we obtain the equation of motion @xmath362 if the loop rotates uniformly ( @xmath363 ) , ( 5.12 ) is just the pendulum equation , as one expects intuitively .    because we are using a rotating coordinate system ( @xmath122 is measured from @xmath364 ) @xmath6 is not equal to @xmath365 in this system , so that the hamiltonian @xmath7 is not equal to the energy ( @xmath366 ) in this system either . to find @xmath7 , we first calculate the canonical momentum @xmath367 , where @xmath368 and then @xmath369 is @xmath370 in terms of the canonical variables @xmath122 , @xmath371 the hamiltonian @xmath7 is @xmath372 where we drop @xmath373 terms since we assume @xmath374 .    we can not apply ( 5.10 ) as it stands , since @xmath375 was used in the derivation . the generalization to include cases where @xmath376 is @xmath377 where @xmath39 is the average of @xmath7 over the fast motion ( here @xmath122 ) . alternatively , we can use ( 5.10 ) , with now @xmath378 . from ( 5.15 ) we have @xmath379 since @xmath122 varies rapidly and @xmath371 is nearly constant . we now assume @xmath140 is constant . for @xmath380 , @xmath39 is a function of the good action @xmath381 only ( no @xmath122 dependence ) , and when @xmath382 we see @xmath371 remains a good action . note that @xmath39 is independent of angle @xmath301 , so that the second term in ( 5.16 ) will not contribute to @xmath383 , which is @xmath384 the total phase undergone after a long return time @xmath385 is thus @xmath386 the first term is the dynamical phase , the second is the hannay ( geometric ) phase .      for a foucault pendulum the hannay angle is the angle by which the plane of the pendulum vibration shifts in one day , i.e. @xmath387 , where @xmath122 is the co - latitude of the point on earth where the pendulum is located . this is a clockwise rotation in the northern hemisphere . this result for @xmath388 has been derived by berry @xcite and others @xcite by various arguments . there are also some pre - hannay purely geometric arguments for the foucault pendulum precession @xcite . here we show the result follows simply from ( 5.16 ) . we consider a pendulum of length @xmath6 and bob mass @xmath124 oscillating at a point on the earth s surface with co - latitude @xmath122 . we use axes x , y , z attached to the earth , with x , y in the horizontal plane and z vertical . when at rest in the x , y , z system , the pendulum hangs along the z - axis , and when in motion the bob oscillates very nearly in the x , y plane . neglecting the z motion and assuming @xmath389 is small , where @xmath390 is the earth s angular velocity , we easily find @xcite the approximate horizontal equations of motion @xmath391 where @xmath392 . we have kept the @xmath393 coriolis terms , but dropped the @xmath373 centrifugal terms , since @xmath140 is small compared to the pendulum frequency @xmath99 . here @xmath140 is the local vertical component of the earth s angular velocity . we are interested in particular in the orbit precession rate predicted by ( 5.20 ) . it is easily checked that ( 5.20 ) follow from the lagrangian @xmath394 and of course ( 5.21 ) can be derived directly @xcite . changing to polar coordinates @xmath395 , @xmath123 via @xmath396 , @xmath397 changes @xmath6 to the form @xmath398 two constants of the motion are obvious from ( 5.22 ) : since @xmath6 does not depend on @xmath123 , @xmath399 is a constant , where @xmath400 and because @xmath6 does not depend on @xmath16 explicitly , the hamiltonian @xmath401 is a constant , where @xmath402 and @xmath403 two constants of the motion with two degrees of freedom imply that the system is integrable and that two good actions exist .    to express @xmath7 in terms of the canonical variables @xmath395 , @xmath123 , @xmath404 , @xmath399 we use ( 5.23 ) and @xmath405 to get @xmath406    where again we drop an @xmath373 term . we wish to use ( 5.16 ) ( not ( 5.10 ) here as @xmath407 ) to find the frequencies @xmath408 and @xmath409 , where @xmath301 is the orientational angle of the earth multiplied by @xmath129 . note that for @xmath410 , ( 5.26 ) is simply the hamiltonian for an isotropic 2d harmonic oscillator . calculation of the actions for the 2d oscillator , @xmath411 and @xmath412 , is a standard exercise @xcite , and the hamiltonian @xmath413 in terms of these actions is @xmath414 the term @xmath415 in ( 5.26 ) will not disturb the good actions , so that ( 5.26 ) becomes @xmath416    application of ( 5.16 ) with @xmath417 and @xmath418 then gives    @xmath419    where a positive ( + ) frequency in @xmath420 corresponds to a counterclockwise rotation . note that the foucault precession frequency @xmath421 is true for orbits of any shape , e.g. near linear ( the usual case ) , elliptical , or circular . the factor of 2 in @xmath422 in ( 5.29 ) is clear intuitively : for @xmath423 , in one circuit of an elliptical orbit , @xmath395 goes through two cycles while @xmath123 goes through one . computing the phase of the pendulum @xmath424 after one complete rotation of the earth ( period @xmath425 ) then gives @xmath426 the term @xmath427 is the dynamical phase @xmath428 and @xmath429 is the geometric hannay angle @xmath388 .    the examples in this section and the previous one led to a nonvanishing hannay angle @xmath345 . it is easy to show that the earlier example ( particle in a 1d box with a slowly moving wall ) gives a vanishing result . the same is true for a particle in a slowly rotating 1d box ( fixed walls ) . golin @xcite has proved that , for 1d systems with one adiabatic parameter @xmath301 , one always has @xmath430 unless @xmath301 undergoes a rotational excursion through @xmath351 . however the proof does not cover our rotating 1d box example ( which has a hard wall potential ) , since golin @xcite assumes a smooth potential . the case of a slowly rotating 2d box of elliptical shape has been worked out by koiller @xcite , and gives a nonvanishing @xmath345 depending in a complicated way on the area of the box . nonintegrable systems have fewer than @xmath21 independent constants of the motion or good actions , where @xmath21 is the number of degrees of freedom . for such systems , at least some of the possible motions are chaotic , and for these at least some of the good action variables do not exist . hence we have not been able to proceed rigorously beyond the general relation ( 5.4 ) for chaotic motions . ( despite the nonexistence of good actions @xmath286 for nonintegrable systems , formal use of them and their adiabatic invariance have been used successfully in semiclassical quantization schemes ; see sections 2.3 , 3.1 , 4.1 , 4.3 and ref . @xcite for a method based on the maupertuis principles for conservative systems , and see refs . @xcite for a method based on adiabatic switching . ) as stated , we do not have rigorous arguments to draw consequences from the ump ( 5.4 ) for nonintegrable systems , but some heuristic arguments can be given . for example , by choosing @xmath431 to vary slowly and linearly with @xmath16 , e.g. @xmath432 , where @xmath306 is small , we can the adiabatic invariance of the action @xmath286 for a 1d periodic system ( earlier we that @xmath286 is an adiabatic invariant for such systems ) . further , by considering long trajectories of multidimensional systems , which start and end in some small region in phase space , and which are not quite periodic in general , we can formally show that , in a poincar cycle time or in the limit @xmath433 the long - path action @xmath4 is an adiabatic invariant for quasiperiodic and chaotic trajectories of multidimensional systems . ehrenfest @xcite has previously shown that @xmath4 is an adiabatic invariant for multidimensional periodic systems . for systems , the phase volume @xmath434 is an adiabatic invariant ( see next paragraph ) , and since the adiabatic invariant is apparently unique for such systems ( kasuga @xcite ) , it should be possible to derive the adiabatic invariance of @xmath4 from that of @xmath140 for these systems , but we have been so far unable to do this @xcite . we note that counterparts of the hannay angle have been established for adiabatically evolving nonintegrable @xcite and ergodic @xcite systems .    for one limiting case , complete chaos ( ergodic motion ) where the energy is the only constant of the motion , and long trajectories typically cover essentially the whole energy surface , a rigorous adiabatic invariant has been found @xcite , i.e. the phase volume @xmath435 , enclosed by the energy surface @xmath436 : @xmath437 , \eqno ( 5.31)\ ] ] where @xmath438 is the step function , which is unity for positive argument . ( for multidimensional systems , @xmath439 stands for @xmath440 . )    if @xmath441 depends on a slowly varying parameter @xmath295 so that @xmath442 , then @xmath443 . the adiabatic invariance of @xmath434 is intuitively plausible @xcite . first consider the initial ( @xmath316 ) energy surface @xmath444 , and its image under an time development ( i.e.not necessarily slow ) . the final ( image ) surface at the time @xmath36 is not in general a constant energy surface , and hence not in general a dynamical surface . however , by liouville s theorem the volume enclosed by the final surface is equal to that enclosed by the initial surface . the time - development from @xmath316 to @xmath445 sufficiently slow then at each stage the surface which has evolved from the @xmath316 surface a dynamical surface , by definition of adiabatic evolution , where allowed motions transform into allowed motions @xcite . in this case the final @xmath445 surface is a true constant energy dynamical surface , and hence @xmath446 from liouville s theorem .    for ergodic systems , there are no good quantum numbers except for the energy - ordering quantum number @xmath447 , where @xmath448 . a rough but useful semiclassical quantization scheme for ergodic systems based on @xmath434 is the weyl rule @xcite    @xmath449    which implicitly defines @xmath450 . this is just a restatement of the early rule due to planck @xcite that each quantum state occupies a volume of size @xmath451 in classical phase space . in practice , various improvements such as replacing @xmath216 by @xmath452 as in ( 2.4 ) are used @xcite . more subtle improvements can be obtained from gutzwiller s trace formula @xcite . these relate fluctuations from the smooth dependence of @xmath44 on @xmath216 predicted by ( 5.32 ) to the classical periodic orbits . in cases such as the @xmath184 potential , where the classical @xmath434 diverges @xcite due to the infinite channels of the potential ( see fig.1 ) , one can estimate the smooth part of @xmath453 ( the cumulative number of states up to @xmath44 ) quantum mechanically @xcite at low energy by an asymptotic expansion @xcite , with leading terms @xmath454 and @xmath455 , where @xmath456 is dimensionless . application of the generalization of ( 5.32 ) , i.e. @xmath457 , then gives reasonable estimates of the low - lying state energies @xcite . another consequence of the ump ( 5.4 ) is the classical version of the hellmann - feynman theorem @xcite    @xmath458    here @xmath459 depends on a parameter @xmath301 , so that the energy @xmath460 depends on @xmath301 , as well as on the ( constant ) action @xmath286 , and @xmath461 denotes a time - average over a period @xmath462 at fixed action @xmath286 . we assume a one - dimensional periodic system for simplicity . the quantum version of the theorem @xcite is nowadays much better known , i.e. @xmath463 where @xmath464 , and where the hamiltonian operator @xmath465 depends on some parameter @xmath301 , so that the energy eigenvalue @xmath466 and eigenfunction @xmath467 do also , because of @xmath468 proof of ( 5.34 ) is simple ; we apply @xmath469 to both sides of the relation @xmath470 , and note that the two terms involving @xmath471 add to zero because of ( 5.35 ) , the hermiticity of @xmath465 , and the fact that we assume @xmath472 for all @xmath301 . it is clear that ( 5.33 ) is the classical limit of ( 5.34 ) , since as @xmath473 ( or @xmath474 ) @xmath475 approaches a time average over a period , and fixing @xmath43 corresponds to fixing @xmath286 , since @xmath476 . to derive ( 5.33 ) from ( 5.4 ) we consider @xmath431 to evolve adiabatically , so that @xmath301 and @xmath36 in ( 5.4 ) can be related . the derivation is intricate , however , and it is simpler to proceed instead from the rmp ( 2.3 ) for conservative systems . we apply ( 2.3 ) to two periodic trajectories of @xmath477 , the true one with period @xmath478 , and a virtual one taken as the true trajectory of @xmath479 with period @xmath480 . since first - order variations in @xmath481 vanish ( at fixed @xmath482 ) , we have    @xmath483    where @xmath484 is an average over the trajectory with period @xmath478 , and it is understood that @xmath286 is the same for both @xmath484 and @xmath485 . from ( 5.36 ) we get for @xmath486 to @xmath487 accuracy @xmath488 again neglecting @xmath489 terms we have @xmath490 eq(5.37 ) yields @xmath491 , and since @xmath492 for the true trajectory we get @xmath493 , the hellmann - feynman relation ( 5.33 ) apart from notation .    as a simple example of ( 5.33 ) consider a 1d harmonic oscillator , with hamiltonian @xmath494 and @xmath495 , where @xmath496 is the angular frequency . choose @xmath497 , the force constant . the left side of ( 5.33 ) is @xmath498 and the right side is @xmath499 . thus we have @xmath500 , as is well known from the virial theorem @xcite . if we choose @xmath501 , we find similarly @xmath502 .    as a second example , consider the bound motion of a 1d system with hamiltonian @xmath503 . we change variables @xmath504 via the transformation @xmath505 , @xmath506 , where @xmath301 is an arbitrary scale factor . this transformation is canonical and preserves the hamiltonian @xcite , i.e. @xmath507 , where @xmath508 the energy of a given state of motion is unchanged by the change from @xmath7 to @xmath509 for any value of @xmath301 . we now use ( 5.38 ) in the hellmann - feynman relation ( 5.33 ) . the left hand side vanishes . the right hand side derivative is @xmath510 where @xmath511 , and we have reverted to the original variables in the second form . hence we get @xmath512 i.e. the virial theorem for an arbitrary potential @xmath513 . hamilton s principle is widely used in classical relativistic mechanics and in the classical theory of electromagnetic and gravitational fields to derive covariant equations of motion ( see , e.g.@xcite ) . as for maupertuis principle , it is widely believed that it is not well suited for that purpose because when operating with the energy one loses explicit covariance . in this section we demonstrate , first , how to use maupertuis principle for the derivation of the covariant equations of motion and , the second , how to use it for the solution of specific problems . consider a relativistic particle with mass @xmath124 and charge @xmath514 moving in an arbitrary external electromagnetic field , described by a four - potential with contravariant components @xmath515 , and covariant components @xmath516 , where @xmath123 and @xmath517 ( for @xmath518 ) are the usual scalar and vector potentials . hamilton s action for this system can be written in the lorentz invariant form @xcite    @xmath519 where we use the sign of lanczos @xcite for @xmath3 , opposite to that of landau and lifshitz @xcite . the sign can be chosen arbitrarily ; our choice allows us to use below the orthodox definitions @xmath520 and @xmath521 . the four - dimensional path runs from the initial point @xmath522 to the final point @xmath523 in four - dimensional space - time with corresponding proper times @xmath524 and @xmath525 . here @xmath526 is the infinitesimal interval of the path ( or of the proper time ) @xmath527 , the metric has signature @xmath528 and we use the summation convention and units with @xmath529 , where @xmath530 is the velocity of light . @xmath3 is itself not gauge invariant , but a gauge transformation @xmath531 ( for arbitrary @xmath21 ) adds only constant boundary points terms to @xmath3 , so that @xmath532 is unchanged . the hp is thus gauge invariant . if we introduce a parameter @xmath533 along the four - dimensional path ( proper time @xmath534 along the true or any particular virtual path are valid choices ) the action @xmath3 can be rewritten in the form    @xmath535^{1/2 } { d\tau } + e \int\ a_{\alpha}v^{\alpha}{d\tau } , \eqno(6.2)\ ] ] where @xmath536 . in general , @xmath533 is both frame - independent and path - independent . a path - independent parameter is here invaluable for variational purposes , since we then do not have to vary the parameter when we vary the path . after the variations have been performed , we can then choose @xmath537 , etc . the limits of the integrals are the invariants @xmath538 and @xmath539 . with respect to parameter @xmath533 we get the covariant lagrangian    @xmath540^{1/2 } + e v_{\alpha}a^{\alpha }   , \eqno(6.3)\ ] ] and corresponding conjugate momenta @xmath541^{1/2 } + ea^{\alpha } , \eqno(6.4)\ ] ] and hamiltonian @xmath542    thus in this particular covariant treatment the hamiltonian is trivial . the dynamics is hidden in a constraint . one can see that the four conjugate momenta are not independent variables but satisfy the constraint @xmath543 which is obvious from ( 6.4 ) . this constraint can be taken into account with the help of the lagrange multiplier method , i.e. with the help of an effective hamiltonian @xcite @xmath544 . \eqno(6.7)\ ] ] we easily find that the hamilton equations of motion with @xmath545 are equivalent to @xmath546 ( for @xmath547 , the true trajectory proper time ) and to the covariant lorentz equations of motion for a charged particle in an external field : @xmath548 @xmath549 i.e. the same equations as are found from the lagrangian ( 6.3 ) ( see , e.g. @xcite ) . on the other hand the hamilton equations with @xmath545 are equivalent to the mp or to the rmp with the same @xmath545 . thus one can use any of the four variational principles ( hp , rhp , gmp , rmp ) either with lagrangian ( 6.3 ) or with effective hamiltonian ( 6.7 ) for the derivation of the covariant equations of motion . it is to be noted that in the covariant formulation of relativistic mechanics , the hamiltonian ( a lorentz scalar ) is not equal to the energy ( the time component of a four - vector ) . thus @xmath25 in the maupertuis principle must be interpreted as @xmath550 where @xmath551 . by contrast , in the noncovariant formulation discussed below , the hamiltonian is equal to the energy @xmath552 . there are other , related , formal difficulties arising from ( 6.5 ) . this condition ( @xmath553 ) is due to the fact that the lagrangian @xmath6 in ( 6.3 ) is homogeneous and of first degree in @xmath554 ( i.e. essentially linear in velocities @xmath554 ) , so that @xmath555 and hence the difference @xmath556 ( the hamiltonian ) vanishes @xcite . since @xmath553 , the legendre transform relation ( 6.5 ) between @xmath6 and @xmath7 simplifies to @xmath557 and hence the legendre transform relation between @xmath4 and @xmath3 , i.e. @xmath558 ( where @xmath559 ) , simplifies to    @xmath560 because @xmath561 , direct application of the gmp ( @xmath562 would be cumbersome , and direct application of the rmp ( @xmath563 would be impossible . all these difficulties can be traced to the well studied difficulty @xcite of applying an action principle with kinematic @xcite nonholonomic constraints , such as ( 6.6 ) for the momenta , or for the velocities @xmath564 for proper time @xmath534 , or @xmath565 for arbitrary parameter @xmath533 . one way out of the difficulties is to introduce the constraint with a lagrange multiplier for either the lagrangian or hamiltonian ( as is done above for @xmath545 ) . another way out is to exploit the nonuniqueness of the lagrangian . for example @xcite , the covariant lagrangian @xmath6 ( 6.3 ) is equivalent to the covariant lagrangian @xmath566 , where ( with @xmath533 as parameter )    @xmath567 where @xmath568 . it is easily verified that ( 6.12 ) generates the same euler - lagrange equations of motion as ( 6.3 ) . for @xmath537 ( the proper time of the path in question ) , ( 6.12 ) simplifies to    @xmath569 which is often employed @xcite . the advantage of ( 6.12 ) and ( 6.13 ) is that they are nonhomogeneous in @xmath554 , and hence will generate a nontrivial corresponding hamiltonian @xmath570 . for ( 6.13 ) , for example , we find    @xmath571    note that @xmath570 ( 6.14 ) and @xmath545 ( 6.7 ) ( for @xmath572 ) differ only by a constant . use of the covariant @xmath573 and @xmath570 in place of @xmath6 and @xmath7 removes the difficulties of using all four variational principles ( hp , rhp , gmp , rmp ) . for @xmath6 and @xmath7 , only the first two can be used . note again that @xmath25 is computed from @xmath570 as in ( 6.9 ) , with @xmath570 in place of @xmath545 . now we come to the question of the solution of specific physical problems . in this case explicit covariance usually is not of great importance and it is more useful to find an appropriate convenient frame . for any given frame we can choose @xmath574 ( the coordinate time ) and obtain the complete set of nontrivial quantities    @xmath575    @xmath576 @xmath577 , \eqno(6.15)\ ] ] @xmath578    the expression for @xmath6 in ( 6.15 ) is derived from ( 6.3 ) or ( 6.12 ) by choosing @xmath574 , except that we have used the freedom to change the sign of @xmath6 to agree with the standard choice in the noncovariant case @xcite . again we have chosen @xmath17 and @xmath18 . note that the nonrelativistic form @xmath579 for the maupertius action is not valid here , and also note that the hamiltonian @xmath7 is equal to the energy @xmath580 , despite the fact that @xmath581 . as a result the complete set of four variational principles is available in any particular frame . it is matter of taste or practical convenience to use one principle or another . from a practical point of view there is no difference in the usage of variational principles in nonrelativistic mechanics and in relativistic mechanics in a given frame .    as an example of the usage of the gmp for relativistic mechanics consider the motion of an electron in a uniform magnetic field @xmath582 . a corresponding vector potential in the coulomb gauge ( @xmath583 ) is @xmath584 , or @xmath585 @xcite . the solution of ( 6.8 ) in this case is well known - the electron moves with constant velocity along the direction of the field ( along the z - axis in our case ) and along a circular orbit in the @xmath586 plane with the cyclotron frequency @xmath587 where @xmath44 is the total energy of the particle including the kinetic energy of the motion in the z -direction .    to calculate this frequency from the gmp we take as a trial trajectory @xmath588 where @xmath110 and @xmath349 are free parameters . after some simple algebra we get    @xmath589 @xmath590 . \eqno(6.17)\ ] ]    in this case it seems that an economical method is to use the gmp ( 2.2 ) . for this purpose one has to rewrite @xmath4 as a function of @xmath25 @xmath591 [ \omega \bar e - \frac{|e|}{2}b ] , \eqno(6.18)\ ] ] and to calculate the variation @xmath592 at fixed @xmath25 . the gmp ( 2.2 ) translates here to @xmath593 . one then easily finds the analytical solution    @xmath594 the exact solution corresponds to the case when @xmath492 . for our trial trajectory , we happen to have @xmath492 and the approximate solution coincides with the exact one ( similar to the case of a harmonic oscillator ) . this simple example demonstrates how to use variational principles for relativistic systems . in section 2.1 we mentioned that the classical limit of the schrdinger quantum variational principle is the reciprocal maupertuis principle for periodic or other steady - state motions , i.e. @xmath595 where @xmath596 is the hamiltonian operator corresponding to the classical hamiltonian @xmath35 . here @xmath36 is the period for periodic motions , or @xmath597 for other steady - state motions ( quasiperiodic or chaotic ) . solution of the left - hand side yields @xcite the stationary state @xmath598 with the energy eigenvalue @xmath116 , i.e. @xmath599 the time - independent schrdinger equation . details of the proof of ( 7.1 ) ( which is straightforward only for integrable systems ) are given in @xcite . in ref.@xcite it is explained how schrdinger , in his first paper on wave mechanics in 1926 , in essence worked backwards , i.e. starting from the right hand side of ( 7.1 ) , he  derived " the left hand side , and thereby discovered wave mechanics . in his second paper on wave mechanics in 1926 he retracted this argument because his version of the right hand side of ( 7.1 ) was not quite correct . in this second paper he presented an alternative argument as a basis for wave mechanics ( now in the standard textbooks ) based on the analogy between geometric and wave optics on the one hand , and particle and wave mechanics on the other . we consider now the generalization of ( 7.1 ) to nonstationary states @xmath600 , where the true dynamical states satisfy the time - dependent schrdinger equation @xmath601    where @xmath602 , and the initial state @xmath603 is given . for notational simplicity we consider a single particle in three dimensions , so that @xmath604 , and    @xmath605 where @xmath606 and @xmath607 = @xmath608 . the arguments which follow are also valid for nonconservative systems , where @xmath609 . we shall consider here the quantum time - dependent variational principle due to frenkel and dirac @xcite for the wave function @xmath600 , but we note the existence of other quantum time - dependent variational principles , e.g. for the time - evolution operator and transition amplitudes @xcite , for the heisenberg operator version @xcite and for the matrix mechanics version @xcite of the hamilton principle , for the density matrix @xcite , for the mean value of an arbitrary observable @xcite , and for time - dependent density functional theory @xcite . ( for completeness , we note that there are also other @xcite quantum time - independent variational principles , in addition to that of schrdinger . ) the original frenkel - dirac variational principle is @xcite    @xmath610    for arbitrary variations @xmath611 around the true dynamical state @xmath612 . since ( 7.5 ) is true for all possible variations @xmath613 , then @xmath614 for the true states , as in ( 7.3 ) . by adding ( 7.5 ) and its complex conjugate and using the hermiticity of @xmath596 we can transform ( 7.5 ) to @xcite @xmath615    integrating over an arbitrary but fixed time interval @xmath616 , and assuming @xmath617 is fixed , we find @xcite from ( 7.6 ) @xmath618    note that ( 7.7 ) is not in the traditional form for a variational principle @xmath619 , because of the right hand side . it is more like the unconstrained principles discussed earlier . some authors drop the right hand side without comment @xcite , but it is required if arbitrary variations @xmath613 in @xmath620 are allowed ; otherwise ( 7.7 ) will not generate the schrdinger equation ( 7.3 ) and its complex conjugate @xcite . it is possible to obtain a vanishing right - hand side by restricting the variations @xmath613 in various ways @xcite , e.g. requiring the trial wave functions @xmath600 to be normalized at all times . another way is to write the right hand side as @xmath621 , formally regard @xmath620 and its complex conjugate @xmath622 as independent ( see below ) , and assume @xmath623 ( as well as @xmath603 ) is fixed . however , we find it simplest to retain the general form ( 7.7 ) , with no constraints on @xmath600 except for the fixing of the initial condition @xmath603 . ( when dealing explicitly with bound states later , we assume boundary conditions on @xmath624 . )    by writing out the scalar products @xmath625 in ( 7.7 ) and using the hermiticity of @xmath626 , we can write ( 7.7 ) in field theory form @xmath627 where the lagrangian density @xmath628 is @xmath629 since @xmath620 is a complex function , whose real and imaginary parts can be varied independently , it is well known @xcite that @xmath620 and @xmath630 can be regarded as independent for variational purposes . these two variations in ( 7.8 ) with @xmath628 given by ( 7.9 ) will generate the schrdinger equation and its complex conjugate . following feynman @xcite , we change variables @xmath631 ( or @xmath632 ) in the lagrangian density @xmath633 , where @xmath634 is the amplitude and @xmath635 the phase of the wave function , via the madelung transformation @xcite : @xmath636 where @xmath637 is the probability density . in terms of @xmath395 and @xmath3 we have @xmath638 in terms of @xmath632 the boundary term in ( 7.8 ) is @xmath639    we now take the classical ( @xmath473 ) limit of ( 7.8 ) . using ( 7.11 ) and ( 7.12 ) we get @xmath640 = \int d{\bf r } \rho(t)\delta s(t ) \;\ ; . \eqno ( 7.13)\ ] ]    we have assumed that in the limit @xmath473 , @xmath395 and @xmath3 approach well defined limits ( which we continue to denote by @xmath395 and @xmath3 ) . in particular we assume that @xmath641 does not contain an @xmath642 term @xcite . we vary @xmath395 and @xmath3 independently in ( 7.13 ) . varying @xmath395 , with @xmath3 fixed , gives @xmath643 = 0.\ ] ] since @xmath644 is arbitrary , the bracket [ ... ] must vanish , so that @xmath645 this is the classical hamilton - jacobi equation @xcite for the classical action @xmath646 along true paths . next we vary @xmath3 in ( 7.13 ) with @xmath395 fixed . we integrate the @xmath647 term by parts using @xmath648    where we drop a surface term by assuming @xmath649 for @xmath650 . this assumes the corresponding quantum state has finite norm . we integrate the @xmath651 term by parts using @xmath652 where we use @xmath653 which follows from the fixing of @xmath617 . using ( 7.15 ) and ( 7.16 ) in ( 7.13 ) thus gives @xmath654\delta s = 0.\ ] ] since this is true for arbitrary @xmath655 , we get @xmath656 this is the continuity equation , reflecting conservation of total probability , since @xcite @xmath657 is the momentum of the particle . note that if the right hand side of ( 7.13 ) were missing , we would not get the correct continuity equation . in contrast to what we have done here , feynman @xcite keeps the @xmath658 terms in ( 7.11 ) , and the variational principle then leads to quantum generalizations @xcite of the hamilton - jacobi ( 7.14 ) and continuity ( 7.17 ) equations . thus we see that the classical limit of the quantum time - dependent variational principle is the classical variational principle for the hamilton - jacobi and continuity equations . interestingly the classical limit of the quantum time - dependent variational principle leads to a classical variational principle for the hamilton action @xmath3 along the true trajectories , whereas the classical limit of the quantum time - independent variational principle in the form of the left side of ( 7.1 ) leads to a classical variational principle for the trajectories themselves ( rmp -the right side of ( 7.1 ) ) . an alternative form @xcite of the quantum time - independent variational principle ,    @xmath659    will generate in the classical limit a variational principle for the maupertuis ( or time - independent ) action @xmath660 along the true paths . in ( 7.18 ) @xmath44 is a constant lagrange multiplier introduced to remove the normalization constraint @xmath661 . the extremizing @xmath662 s which satisfy ( 7.18 ) obey @xmath663 so that @xmath44 is the energy eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenfunction @xmath620 .    to derive the classical limit of ( 7.18 ) we proceed much as before . ( we assume @xmath596 is time - independent in this section . ) we first apply the madelung transformation to @xmath662 , i.e. @xmath664 where @xmath665 is the amplitude and @xmath666 the phase . following similar steps as above , we find ( 7.18 ) becomes in the classical ( @xmath473 ) limit @xmath667 = 0 \;\ ; , \eqno ( 7.21)\ ] ] where @xmath668 . varying @xmath669 in ( 7.21 ) with @xmath666 fixed gives    @xmath670    the time - independent hamilton - jacobi equation @xcite for the maupertuis action @xmath671 along true paths . if we vary @xmath666 in ( 7.21 ) with fixed @xmath669 we get the continuity equation @xmath672 since @xcite @xmath673 is the momentum of the particle .    in ref.@xcite , we show how the classical limit of ( 7.18 ) can be taken in a different way ( using standard 1d wkb wave functions ) and for a 1d periodic orbit leads to @xmath674 , i.e. the uhp for a periodic orbit of period @xmath36 . we note that , just as for the right hand side of ( 7.1 ) , the derivation of the classical limits ( 7.14 ) and ( 7.22 ) is somewhat formal for the chaotic motions of nonintegrable systems , since classical values of @xmath3 and @xmath4 may not exist as well defined functions for such systems . unlike the nonrelativistic limit ( @xmath675 ) , which is regular , the limit @xmath676 or @xmath677 is singular , which makes the classical limit subtle and interesting @xcite . we summarize the two groups of classical variational principles reviewed in this paper . first we have the maupertuis principles : @xmath678 the first of these is the unconstrained form ( ump ) , the second the general maupertuis principle ( gmp ) , and the third is the reciprocal maupertuis principle ( rmp ) . by legendre transformation of the principles in ( 8.1 ) we obtain the hamilton principles : @xmath679 the first is the unconstrained form ( uhp ) , the second the hamilton principle ( hp ) , and the third the reciprocal hamilton principle ( rhp ) . in all these principles , the end - positions of the trajectory @xmath23 and @xmath24 are held fixed , and the notation indicates what else is fixed and what is varied .    we have given a number of examples showing how to use these principles to solve practical problems , focussing particularly on the three maupertuis principles . both classical and semiclassical applications have been given , and some comparisons are made with the results from quantum variational principle calculations . the classical limits of two quantum variational principles ( time - dependent and time - independent ) are given . in particular , the rmp is the classical limit of the schrdinger time - independent quantum variational principle . the rmp is thereby naturally adapted to semiclassical applications    in the applications , the variational principles ( both classical and quantum ) are solved by the direct variational method , where one guesses a trial solution containing adjustable parameters , and adjusts the parameters to satisfy the variational principle . the euler - lagrange differential equation is not required in this method . when we choose a simple trial solution , the results can be found simply and analytically .    using the direct variational method the rmp and ump have been used to estimate semiclassically the energy levels in several examples . the levels @xmath680 can be expressed in analytical form , and the accuracy is quite acceptable in most cases , even for nonintegrable systems which are usually treated by much more complicated semiclassical methods , e.g. the gutzwiller trace formula @xcite , or quantizing the birkhoff - gustavson normal form @xcite . it would be useful to have comparisons of the results from the maupertuis principle - based method with those from the latter two and other methods for a number of specific problems . the methods should be compared for accuracy of results and computational complexity . some limited comparisons of the maupertuis principle and normal form methods have been done for the @xmath681 oscillator of sec . 4.1 in refs . @xcite , and limited comparisons for this model of results from the maupertuis principle and the semiclassical adiabatic methods @xcite are presented in table 1 of sec . 4.1.1 , but much more extensive comparisons would be of interest . variational principles appeal to various individuals for differing reasons , both aesthetic @xcite and practical . we have stressed the utility for classical and semiclassical particle dynamics calculations in this review . engineers too make heavy use of variational principles in solving practical problems of classical continuum mechanics @xcite . on rare occasions variational principles have even led to new laws of physics @xcite . we gratefully acknowledge the natural sciences and engineering research council of canada for financial support of this work . we thank donald sprung for a careful reading of the manuscript , david garfinkle for helpful remarks on relativistic mechanics and stepan bulanov for help with tex .  ... since @xmath682 is the variation of @xmath201 with @xmath186 kept constant , we could conveniently write it as @xmath683 , in accordance with a convention used in thermodynamics ... it is curious that in spite of the obvious need in partial differentiation for precise statement of what is being kept constant , such statement is not embodied in customary notation of pure mathematics , though it is provided in thermodynamics , ... "    _ h.jeffreys and b.s.jeffreys + methods of mathematical physics + cambridge u.p.,1946 . _ variational problems ask for the function which makes stationary an integral involving the function and its derivatives . usually there is a constraint which is fixed . for example , we are to find a function @xmath684 , describing a closed planar curve , of fixed length @xmath6 , which maximizes the area @xmath349 enclosed by the curve @xmath684 . @xmath349 and @xmath6 are functionals of @xmath684 : @xmath685 , l = l[y(x)]$ ] . for our purpose here , we do not need the precise form of @xmath349 or @xmath6 . @xmath6 is the constraint and @xmath349 is the functional to be varied . we use the following notation to describe this variation @xmath686 where the constraint @xmath6 is indicated as a subscript on the bracket enclosing the variation @xmath687 of the functional @xmath349 . the variation @xmath687 is first - order in @xmath682 , and is called the first variation when higher - order variations are considered @xcite . the constraint @xmath6 is denoted explicitly in ( a1.1 ) because it is the most important , or the one we wish to focus on . there may be other constraints which are left implicit , e.g. that the planar curve pass through a given point ( @xmath688 ) . in this paper we always leave fixed end - position constraints on curves ( closed or open ) implicit . the solution of the problem ( a1.1 ) is the function @xmath684 , which satisfies a differential equation , the euler - lagrange equation . the reciprocal variational problem has the constraint @xmath6 and the varied functional @xmath349 interchanged . in other words , it is described by the equation @xmath689 the two equations , ( a1.1 ) and ( a1.2 ) , @xmath684 . the reciprocal variation is searching for the function @xmath684 which makes stationary ( here minimizes ) the length @xmath6 of a closed curve with fixed enclosed area @xmath349 . the common solution for both problems is a circle , as is clear intuitively . one way to prove reciprocity is to use a trick , due to lagrange , called the method of lagrange multipliers . the problem ( a1.1 ) is first restated in unconstrained form as @xmath690 where the variations of both @xmath349 and @xmath6 are unconstrained and @xmath301 is an undetermined multiplier . to obtain ( a1.2 ) from ( a1.3 ) , we simply specify that we now fix @xmath349 ( i.e. set @xmath691 ) and vary @xmath6 , i.e. @xmath692 . this proves the reciprocity theorem . reciprocity is clear intuitively in the isoperimetric problem ( a1.1 ) . an example of reciprocity from physics is the gibbs conditions for equilibrium in thermodynamics @xcite . the reciprocal conditions @xmath693 and @xmath694 are both conditions for thermal equilibrium , where @xmath3 is the entropy and @xmath695 the internal energy . these express the facts that the state of thermal equilibrium is that state which maximizes the entropy for fixed internal energy , and also is that state which minimizes the internal energy for fixed entropy . ( the unconstrained form @xcite is @xmath696 , where the lagrange multiplier is the temperature @xmath36 . here the implicit constraints in all cases are fixed system volume @xmath34 and mole numbers @xmath697 ) reciprocal vp s in mechanics have only recently been studied @xcite - see sec.2 . this is all we shall need from the calculus of variations ; for more details one should consult a text - book @xcite . in sec . 2.2 , for conservative systems , we discussed the equivalence of the hamilton principle ( hp ) @xmath698 with the general maupertuis principle ( gmp ) @xmath699 here we show directly the equivalence of the gmp ( a2.2 ) with the original maupertuis principle ( mp ) @xmath700 in all these principles the end - positions @xmath23 and @xmath24 are held fixed . since ( a2.1 ) , ( a2.2 ) and ( a2.3 ) all generate the same ( euler - lagrange ) equations of motion , it is clear they must be equivalent , and it is interesting to show directly the equivalence of ( a2.2 ) and ( a2.3 ) . we must show that relaxing the constraint of fixed @xmath44 in ( a2.3 ) to fixed @xmath25 in ( a2.2 ) does not generate spurious or unphysical solutions . the constraint of fixed @xmath701 in ( a2.3 ) applies along and between the trial trajectories . to relax this constraint , we use the method of lagrange multipliers @xcite . since @xmath702 , we have @xmath703 , and hence @xmath704 where @xmath301 is an arbitrary constant . the trajectories all start at @xmath316 at fixed point @xmath349 and end at @xmath445 ( which may vary with the trial trajectory ) at fixed point @xmath705 . we release the constraint of fixed @xmath44 in ( a2.3 ) and choose @xmath301 such that        where @xmath710 , and where we recall that the end - time @xmath36 is not fixed in ( a2.3 ) . recalling the definition @xmath711 enables us to write ( a2.5 ) as @xmath712 where we have used the fact that @xmath713 the true trajectory . expanding ( a2.6 ) gives      to see that @xmath717 in ( a2.8 ) , we apply ( a2.8 ) to the special case of two true trajectories , with actions @xmath4 and @xmath718 and energies @xmath44 and @xmath719 . for this case ( a2.8 ) reads @xmath720 . comparison of this with the standard relation @xcite @xmath721 gives @xmath722 . hence we have      thus ( a2.2 ) follows from ( a2.3 ) . the converse , the derivation of ( a2.3 ) from ( a2.2 ) is easy ; we simply restrict the trial trajectories in ( a2.2 ) to those of fixed energy @xmath44 , since the equations of motion following from ( a2.2 ) imply energy conservation . hence ( a2.2 ) and ( a2.3 ) are equivalent .        nesbet r k 2003 _ variational principles and methods in theoretical physics and chemistry _ ( new york : cambridge u.p . ) ; l.r . ram - mohan l r 2002 _ finite element and boundary element applications in quantum mechanics _ ( oxford : oxford u.p . ) ; drake g w f 1998 _ encyclopedia of applied physics _ ( new york : wiley - vch ) * 23 * 121 ; gerjuoy e , rau a r p and spruch l 1983 _ rev.mod.phys . _ * 55 * 725 ; epstein s t 1974 _ the variation method in quantum chemistry _ ( new york : academic ) . quantum vp s for scattering states are reviewed in adhikari s k 1998 _ variational principles for the numerical solution of scattering problems _ ( new york : wiley ) . classical vp s for scattering are discussed in ref . @xcite . for example , in yourgrau and mandelstam @xcite the notation is reversed . hamilton himself used the current notation , but , for the actions along true paths , termed @xmath3 and @xmath4 the principal and characteristic functions , respectively . there is a recent exception : papastavridis j g 2002 _ analytical mechanics _ ( new york : oxford u.p . ) , p. 1044 , where the general maupertuis principle is discussed . this book contains a masterly and historical account of the various variational principles .          in this review we focus on global ( integral ) vp s . we do not discuss the various local ( differential ) vp s due to dalembert , gauss , hertz , gibbs , jourdain and others @xcite . jourdain s principle , and its connections to others , is reviewed by wang l - s and pao y - h 2003 _ am . j. phys _ * 71 * 72      yourgrau w and mandelstam s 1968 _ variational principles in dynamics and quantum theory _ 3rd edition ( london : pitman , philadelphia : w.b.saunders ) , reprinted , dover , new york , 1979 ; terral m 2002 _ the man who flattened the earth _ ( chicago : university of chicago press )      c.g.j.jacobi 1884 _ vorlesungen ber dynamik _ , zweite ausgabe , herausgegeben von a.clebsch ( braunschweig/ wiesbaden : f.vieweg ) , reprinted by chelsea 1969 , p 44 . the quotation in this text is more explicit than @xcite : it names the textbooks of poisson , lagrange and laplace as some of the best ! percival i c 1977 _ adv . phys . _ * 36 * 1 , and references therein van brunt b 2004 _ the calculus of variations _ ( new york : springer ) ch 10 karl g and novikov v a 1995 _ phys . * 51 * 5069 ; 1995 _ j. exp . phys . _ * 80 * 783    holonomic ( coordinate ) constraints are assumed to be taken into account by the choice of the @xmath20 . nonholonomic ( velocity ) constraints ( see note @xcite ) are assumed absent in the early sections but are considered briefly in sec.6 and app.ii . we also exclude quasi - coordinates ( or nonholonomic coordinates ) , e.g. for a rigid body , the three rotation angles around space - fixed @xmath724 axes . vp s using such variables are discussed by papastavridis @xcite , and by marsden j e and ratiu t s 1994 _ introduction to mechanics and symmetry _ ( new york : springer ) p 390 . a seminal paper is poincar h 1901 _ c.r.acad.sci . _ * 132 * 369    the condition @xmath725 is valid for normal systems , for which @xmath31 , the holonomic constraints ( if any ) are time - independent and the reference frame is inertial . if these conditions are satisfied @xmath32 is quadratic in the @xmath726 s . note that the single condition @xmath32 quadratic in the @xmath726 s is not sufficient to have @xmath725 since for some systems with time - dependent constraints @xmath32 is quadratic in the @xmath726 s : see , e.g. de castro a s 2000 _ eur . j. phys . _ * 21 * 23 ; ferrario c and passerini a 2002 _ eur . j. phys . _ * 22 * 11 . percival i c 1974 _ j. phys . _ a * 7 * 794 ; ibid 1979 * 12 * 157 ; see also klein a and li c - t 1979 _ j. math . phys . _ * 20 * 572 . percival later extended his vp for invariant tori to cantori : 1980 _ amer . _ * 55 * 302 . a cantorus is , roughly speaking , a torus - shaped surface with holes such that what remains forms a cantor set of points . a trajectory confined to a torus surface is quasiperiodic . a trajectory starting on a cantorus will slowly  leak away " because of the holes , hence is not confined to the surface so that the quasiperiodicity is destroyed in the long run , and is thus weakly chaotic . see arnold et al @xcite , p.194 , for a precise definition . also see percival i c 1991 in _ chaos and quantum physics giannoni m - j , voros a and zinn - justin j 1991 ( amsterdam : north - holland ) p 11        goldstein et al , ref . @xcite , p 597 ; lanczos , ref . @xcite , p 402 ; oliver d 1994 _ the shaggy steed of physics _ ( new york : springer ) p 39 ; schwinger j , de raad l l jr . , milton k a and tsai w - y 1998 _ classical electrodynamics _ ( reading ma : perseus books ) p 90      the unconstrained hamilton principle ( 2.8 ) is closely related to what hamilton termed the law of varying action ( see landau and lifshitz @xcite , p.134 ) , and also to what some authors refer to as the weiss action principle : see sudarshan e c g and mukunda n 1974 _ classical dynamics _ ( new york : wiley ) , reprinted by krieger 1983 , p 16 . if end - position variations are allowed , as well as end - time variations , the uhp ( 2.8 ) generalizes to @xmath730 , where @xmath731 is the true value of @xmath49 at end - point @xmath705 , etc , and for conservative systems @xmath732 . ( this generalization can be derived from the general first variational theorem @xcite of variational calculus , which includes end - point variations - see appendix a of @xcite for a related discussion of the ump . ) what hamilton termed the law of varying action is the special case for the variation between two true trajectories , so that @xmath733 and @xmath734 are exact differentials . this particular analogy can be pushed further . just as there are numerous other thermodynamic potentials besides the helmholtz free energy @xmath735 and the gibbs free energy @xmath736 , ( where @xmath49 is the pressure and @xmath34 the volume ) , e.g. the internal energy @xmath737 , ( where @xmath36 is the temperature and @xmath3 the entropy ) , we can introduce in mechanics further actions via further legendre transformations . for example , define @xmath738 , where @xmath24 is the final end - point position and @xmath731 the true momentum at @xmath705 . if we relax the constraint of fixed @xmath24 , the uhp generalizes further to @xmath739 . in terms of @xmath740 this transforms to @xmath741 . in terms of @xmath740 , the usual fully constrained hp is @xmath742 , replacing @xmath743 . here , as always , the constraint on @xmath23 is still left implicit in both . further legendre ( using @xmath744 and/or @xmath4 ) and reciprocal transformations are obvious . in this review we focus on the four basic variational principles summarized at the end of sec.2.2 . szamosi g 1973 _ found . phys . _ * 3 * 241 ; peterson m a 1979 _ am . _ * 47 * 488 ; toffoli t in 1999 _ feynman and computation _ ed . hey a j g ( reading ma : perseus books ) p 349 ; bailyn m 1990 _ a survey of thermodynamics _ ( new york : aip press ) p 416 . in particular , authors interested in linking the principle of least action to the second law of thermodynamics include ( see bailyn ) boltzmann , clausius , helmholtz , ehrenfest @xcite and planck : see also , e.g. , planck m 1915 _ eight lectures on theoretical physics _ ( new york : columbia univ . press ) , reprinted by dover , 1998 , p 97 ; thomson j j 1888 _ applications of dynamics to physics and chemistry _ ( london : macmillan ) reprinted by dawson , 1968 ; fnyes i 1952 _ zeit . f. phys . _ * 132 * 140 , and de broglie l 1995 _ diverses questions de mcanique et de thermodynamique classiques et relativistes _ ( berlin : springer )    gutzwiller m c 1990 _ chaos in classical and quantum mechanics _ ( new york : springer ) ; child m s 1991 _ semiclassical mechanics with molecular applications_(oxford : oxford u.p . ) ; brack m and bhaduri r k 1997 _ semiclassical physics _ ( reading ma : addison - wesley ) euler first described the method of discretizing time in the action integral , treating the @xmath745 as discrete variables , and obtaining discretized ( finite difference ) versions of the euler - lagrange ( and newton ) equations , to be solved with the two end - positions and the duration fixed . this method has also been much used in recent years : see , e.g. , percival 1991 @xcite ; beck t l , doll j d and freeman d l 1989 _ j. chem . phys . _ * 90 * 3181 ; basille a g and gray c g 1992 j.comp.phys . * 101 * 80 ; marsden j e and west m 2001 _ acta numerica _ * 10 * 357 ; monforte j c 2002 _ geometric , control and numerical aspects of nonholonomic systems _ ( new york : springer ) p 143 ; elber r , crdenas a , ghosh a and stern h a 2003 _ adv . phys . _ * 126 * 93 . courant r ( bull . * 49 * , 1 ( 1943 ) ) was one of the first to suggest spacial discretization of variational functionals involving fields @xmath746 , a precursor to the modern finite element method ( ram - mohan , ref.@xcite ) which uses a basis of localized trial functions . unfortunately , in some good textbooks the authors misapply the original mp @xmath747 for 1d problems by employing trial trajectories which do not conserve the energy @xmath44 : see , e.g. , tabarrok and rimrott @xcite , p. 180 , or park d 1990 _ classical dynamics and its quantum analogues _ 2nd ed.(new york : springer ) p 80 . olsson m g 1978 _ am . _ * 46 * 1118 ; ibid 1981 * 49 * 531 ; synge j l and griffiths b a 1959 _ principles of mechanics _ ( new york : mcgraw hill ) p 335 ; routh e j 1898 _ a treatise on the dynamics of a particle _ ( cambridge : cambridge u.p . ) , reprinted by dover 1960 p 349 ; airy g b 1851 _ phil.mag . _ series 4 * 2 * 141 .    in the second edition of _ mcanique analytique _ ( 1815 ) , lagrange gave an incorrect result for eq ( 3.11 ) . for an english translation of the second edition see lagrange j l 1997 _ analytical mechanics _ , eds . boissonnade a and vagliente v n ( dordrecht : kluwer ) p 462 . the error was corrected by bertrand , the editor of the third edition ( 1855 ) , following a communiqu by bravais . the rmp method yields @xmath748 and hence after semiclassical quantization @xmath749 , the same as ( 4.7 ) found by the fully quantum vp . since @xmath750 is therefore rational , the optimum quantized trajectories are periodic , at least at this level of approximation . periodic trajectories also play a key role in gutzwiller s trace formula method of semiclassical quantization @xcite . rajan m and junkins j l 1983 _ int . j. nonlinear mech . _ * 18 * 335 bukta d , karl g and nickel b g 2000 _ can . j. phys . _ * 78 * 449 szeredi t and goodings d a 1992 _ phys . rev . lett . _ * 69 * 1640 ; ibid . 1993 rev._e * 48 * 3529 burnell f , mann r b and ohta t 2003 _ phys . lett . _ * 90 * 134101 pauli w 1973 _ pauli lectures in physics _ vol.5 ( cambridge : mit press ) shinohara h 2000 _ rep . phys . _ * 63 * 843 ; eletskii a v 2000 _ uspekhi _ * 43 * , 111 dresselhaus m s , dresselhaus g and eklund p s 1996 _ science of fullerenes and carbon nanotubes _ ( san diego : academic press ) cioslowski j 1995 _ electronic structure calculations on fullerenes and their derivatives _ ( new york : oxford u.p . ) joslin c g , gray c g , poll j d , goldman s and buckingham a d 1995 _ collision and interaction - induced spectroscopy _ eds tabisz g c and neuman m n nato asi ser . c * 452 * ( dordrecht : kluwer ) p 261 joslin c g , yang j , gray c g , poll j d and goldman s 1995 _ lectures on thermodynamics and statistical mechanics _ eds castas m , rodriguez r and benavides a l ( singapore : world scientific ) p 146    complexes xc@xmath751 , where x is on the of the cage , have also been studied , e.g. h@xmath752c@xmath753 @xcite and h@xmath752c@xmath754 ( nanotubes ) @xcite . complexes such as k@xmath755 c@xmath753 are superconductors in the solid state @xcite . joslin c g , gray c g , goddard j d , goldman s , yang j and poll j d 1993 _ chem . lett . _ * 213 * 377 ; joslin c g , yang j , gray c g , goldman s , and poll j d 1993 _ chem . lett . _ * 208 * 86 ; joslin c g , yang j , gray c g , goldman s , and poll j d 1993 _ chem . lett . _ * 211 * 587 ; joslin c g , gray c g , goldman s , yang j and poll j d 1993 _ chem . lett . _ * 215 * 44          joslin c g , gray c g and goldman s 1995 _ chem . phys.lett._ * 244 * 93 ; ibid 1996 * 251 * 414 ( e ) lee - dadswell g r and gray c g 1995 _ can . j. phys . _ * 78 * 599 lee - dadswell g r and gray c g 2003 _ can . _ submitted mandziuk m and bacic z 1994 _ j. chem . _ * 101 * 2126 joslin c g , gray c g and goldman s 1994 _ chem . phys.lett._ * 227 * 405        for li@xmath756@c@xmath753 and lih@c@xmath753 , anisotropic perturbations of the isotropic potential , and the consequent chaotic motions , have been studied by hernndez - rojas et al . yakobson b i and smalley r e 1997 _ american scientist _ * 85 * 324 bug a l r , wilson a and voth g a 1992 _ j. phys . chem . _ * 96 * 7864 ; cardini g , procacci p , salvi p r and schettino v 1992 _ chem . lett . _ * 200 * 39 ; li y s and tomnek d 1994 _ chem . lett . _ * 221 * , 453    the potential @xmath757 can be fit @xcite to simple analytic forms(polynomial , morse , etc ) . in some cases ( e.g. li@xmath756@c@xmath753 ) the potential has its minimum off - centre . for k@xmath756@c@xmath753 the potential is essentially @xmath758 , a rare example of a pure quartic oscillator in nature . lee - dadswell g r 1999 _ m.sc.thesis _ university of guelph , p 58 leubner c and p. krumm p 1990_eur . j. phys . _ * 11 * 31 ; anderson n and arthurs a m 1997 _ eur . j. phys . _ * 18 * 404 ; kobe et al . @xcite ; del valle g , campos i and jimnez j l 1996 _ eur . _ * 17 * 253    bateman h 1931 _ phys . rev . _ * 38 * 815 ; havas p 1957 _ nuovo cimento suppl . _ * 5 * 363 ; leitmann g 1963 _ j.appl.mech . _ * 30 * 623 ; denman h h 1966 _ am . j. phys . _ * 34 * 1147 ; ray j r 1974 _ am . _ * 47 * 626 ; greenberger d m 1979 it  j. math * 20 * 762 ; kobussen j 1979 _ acta phys . aust . _ * 51 * 293 ; bahar l y and kwatny h g 1981 _ am . j. phys . _ * 49 * 1062 ; dekker h 1981 _ phys.rep . _ * 80 * , 1 ; lemos n a 1981 _ am . j. phys . _ * 49 * 1181 ; kobe d h , reali g and sieniutycz s 1986 _ am . j. phys . _ * 54 * 997 ; huang y - s and lin c - l 2002 _ am . _ * 70 * 741 ; vujanovic b d and jones s e 1989 _ variational methods in nonconservative systems _ ( boston : academic press ) ; edelen d g b 1977 _ lagrangian mechanics of nonconservative nonholonomic systems _ ( leyden : noordhoff ) ; soper d e 1976 _ classical field theory _ ( new york : wiley ) p 126 ; santilli r m 1978 _ foundations of theoretical mechanics _ vol . 1 ( new york : springer ) pp . 183 , 199 , 206 ; logan j d 1977 _ invariant variational principles _ ( new york : academic press ) p 56 . these workers go beyond the rayleigh dissipation function method @xcite , and incorporate the friction into the lagrangian ( or hamiltonian ) . for example , for a harmonic oscillator with linear damping ( equation of motion @xmath759 ) , one easily verifies that a suitable lagrangian is @xmath760 $ ] , and the corresponding hamiltonian is @xmath761 . buch l h and denman h h 1976 _ phys . lett . a _ * 55 * 325 . see also yourgrau and mandelstam @xcite , p.47 , who note essentially ( 5.3 ) without remarking explicitly that it is valid for nonconservative systems . similarly see landau and lifshitz @xcite , p.139 , routh @xcite , p.301 , and boltzmann @xcite , p. 121 , where the nonconservative aspect is more explicit . the form @xmath762 for the ump , which is easily shown to be equivalent to ( 5.4 ) , essentially appears in passing in the equations of yourgrau and mandelstam @xcite , p.46 , but they do not note explicitly its validity for nonconservative systems . for the special case of periodic systems evolving adiabatically with parameter @xmath295 , ehrenfest @xcite gives a relation related to ( 5.4 ) ; he has @xmath763 rather than @xmath764 ( as in the original mp ) , and our @xmath765 is replaced by a @xmath766 term . ehrenfest attributes his result to boltzmann and clausius .    as before , in the ump ( 5.4 ) we have fixed the initial time @xmath17 and allow the final time @xmath767 to vary . if both @xmath768 and @xmath769 are allowed to vary , ( 5.4 ) generalizes to @xmath770 \delta t_b + [ e(t_a)- \bar e ] \delta t_a = 0 $ ] . this reduces to ( 5.4 ) for fixed @xmath768 , and to ( 2.10 ) for conservative systems ( @xmath771 ) . further generalizations , allowing @xmath24 and/or @xmath23 to vary , are discussed in notes @xcite    if we start the cycle at the moving wall , for example , instead of the fixed one , the action @xmath772 is not an exact invariant . see crawford f s 1990 _ am.j.phys _ * 58 * 337 ; gignout c and brut f 1989 _ am.j.phys . _ * 57 * , 422 ; percival i and richards d 1982 _ introduction to dynamics _ ( cambridge : cambridge u.p . ) p 142 ; lochak and meunier @xcite , p.18 ; brack and bhaduri @xcite , p. 10 . lichtenberg a j and lieberman m a 1992 _ regular and chaotic dynamics _ 2 ed ( new york : springer ) p 57 and 216 . krainov v p 2002 _ selected mathematical methods in theoretical physics _ ( london : taylor and francis ) p 143 . hannay j h 1985 _ j.phys.a _ * 18 * 221 ; berry m v 1985 _ j.phys.a _ * 18 * 15 . these papers and others on the berry phase are reprinted in shapere a and wilczek f eds 1989 _ geometric phases in physics _ ( singapore : world scientific )        shapere a and wilczek f , ref . [ 30 ] , p 3 ; marsden j e and ratiu t s , ref . @xcite , p 44 ; khein a and nelson d 1992 _ am . j. phys . _ * 61 * 170 ; kugler m 1989 _ am . j. phys . _ * 57 * 247 ; montgomery r 1988 _ comun . phys . _ * 120 * 269 ; greenberger d m 1979 _ j. math . phys . _ * 20 * 762 ; koiller j 1989 _ contemp . _ * 97 * 159    grimsehl e 1932 _ a textbook of physics _ vol . 1 ( london : blackie and son ) p 165 ; sommerville w b 1972 _ quart ; hart j b , miller r e and mills r l 1987 _ am . j. phys . _ * 55 * 67            the converse can be made plausible : from an assumed adiabatic invariance of the long path @xmath4 , the adiabatic invariance of @xmath140 follows . we use @xcite , for @xmath433 , @xmath773 , where @xmath774 is the projected area of curve @xmath357 on the @xmath775 plane , and the fact that the dynamical invariance ( poincar invariant ) of @xmath776 can be derived @xcite from the dynamical invariance of @xmath777    the adiabatic invariance of long - path @xmath4 s for ergodic systems follows heuristically from the ump ( 5.4 ) as described in the text . alternatively , we can heuristically argue that for @xmath597 , the long path is essentially closed in phase space , so that the poincar dynamical invariant @xmath778 remains essentially adiabatically constant as the energy surface and the path on it slowly evolve . obviously the limiting procedures are delicate and problematic . even if our conjecture is true , the adiabatic invariance may appear to be of the seemingly uninformative type @xmath779 , since @xmath780 for @xmath433 . to extract finite results , @xmath36 will need to be taken as , say , the poincar cycle time . we note that , in another situation where @xmath780 as @xmath433 , i.e. scattering orbits , useful results can still be extracted @xcite .    the arguments in the above paragraph , as well as the one in the text , apply also more generally to the chaotic motions of nonergodic nonintegrable systems . since adiabatic invariants have not been found previously for such systems , it would be of interest to prove , or disprove , these suggestions . if proven , it would then be of interest to establish a general semiclassical quantization scheme for nonintegrable systems based on @xmath4 ( generalizing ( 5.32 ) which holds for ergodic systems ) . hertz p 1910 _ ann.der phys . _ * 33 * 225 , 537 . hertz s proof of the adiabatic invariance of the phase volume @xmath434 made explicit what was implicit in the statistical mechanical works of boltzmann , gibbs , and others . ( recall the boltzmann relation for the entropy @xmath781log@xmath434 ; reversible adiabatic processes ( @xmath782 ) correspond to constant @xmath434 . ) hertz s argument is available in a few textbooks : kahan t 1960 _ physique thoretique _ tome premier , vol . ii , ( paris : presses universitaires ) p 482 ; becker r 1969 _ theory of heat _ ( new york : springer ) p 131 ; mnster a 1969 _ statistical thermodynamics _ , vol.i ( berlin : springer ) p 52 ; toda m , kubo r and saito n 1983 _ statistical physics i _ ( berlin : springer ) p 48 . for a rigorous proof , see kasuga t 1961_proc . japan acad . _ * 37 * 366 , 372 , 377 : see also lochak p and c.meunier c 1988 _ multiphase averaging for classical systems _ ( new york : springer ) p 239 . reinhardt w p 1994 _ prog . _ * 116 * 179 , and references therein skodje r t and cary j r 1988 _ computer phys . _ * 8 * 221 berry m v , in 1985 _ theoretical and applied mechanics _ eds . f.i.niordson and n.olhoff ( amsterdam : elsevier ) p 83 , and references therein brown r , ott e and grebogi c 1987 _ phys . lett . _ * 59 * 1173    ehrenfest p 1917 _ phil.mag . _ * 33 * 500 . reprinted in _ sources of quantum mechanics _ ed . van der waerden b l 1967 ( amsterdam : north holland ) , reprinted by dover 1968 , p 79 . an extended version of this paper is available in _ paul ehrenfest collected scientific papers _ , klein m j 1959 ( amsterdam : north holland ) p 378 . later ehrenfest s student j.m.burgers showed that the one - cycle ( or torus ) actions @xmath783 are adiabatic invariants for multidimensional quasiperiodic systems ( burgers j m 1918 _ proc.amsterdam acad . _ * 20 * 163 ; for a textbook treatment , see landau and lifshitz @xcite , p 161 . ) the subtle conditions ( concerning the nondegeneracy of the system frequencies @xmath784 during the adiabatic evolution ) required for the @xmath783 to be adiabatic invariants are discussed by dirac p a m 1925 _ proc . soc . _ * 107 * 725 and von laue m 1925 _ ann . der phys . _ * 76 * 619      the cumulative number of states up to @xmath44 , @xmath785 , is defined quantum mechanically by @xmath786 , where @xmath596 is the hamiltonian operator and tr denotes a trace . tomsovic s 1991 _ j.phys . _ a * 24 * 733    mcrae s m and vrscay e r 1992 _ j. math . phys . _ * 33 * 3004 ; mckinley w a 1971 _ am . j. phys . _ * 39 * 405 ; weisskopf v 1934 _ zeit.f.phys . _ * 89 * 27 . for periodic systems ehrenfest @xcite showed that the classical hellmann - feynman theorem is equivalent to the adiabatic invariance of the action @xmath4 . ehrenfest ( who was boltzmann s student ) attributes this result to boltzmann and clausius . the classical theorem can also be derived ( epstein @xcite ) from classical perturbation theory , using the result ( ter haar @xcite , p.156 ) that the first - order energy shift @xmath787 due to a small change in the hamiltonian @xmath477 by the amount @xmath788 is @xmath789 .    our derivation , and that of epstein @xcite , allow @xmath301 to occur anywhere in the hamiltonian . other explicit published derivations assume @xmath301 occurs in the potential . implicit derivations are contained in a number of places : van vleck j h 1926 _ quantum principles and line spectra , bull . nat.res . council _ , 10 part 4 , p 205 ; becker @xcite , p 129 ; mnster @xcite , p51 ; landau and lifshitz @xcite , p 155 .    the classical and quantum hellmann - feynman relations can be generalized to relations ; for systems in thermal equilibrium we find @xmath790 , where @xmath735 is the helmholtz free energy and @xmath791 denotes a ( classical or quantum ) canonical ensemble average . see gubbins k e and gray c g 1984 _ theory of molecular fluids _ ( oxford : oxford u.p . ) p 236 , and references therein . thus in statistical mechanics we do have @xmath792 in the ensemble ; the correct relation is @xmath793 $ ] , where @xmath794 , with @xmath795 boltzmann s constant and @xmath36 the temperature . ( in the ensemble , where @xmath796 because of the absence of energy fluctuations , we do find @xmath797 , both classically and quantum mechanically . ) hellmann h 1937 _ einfhrung in die quantenchemie _ ( vienna : denticke ) ; feynman r p 1939 _ phys . rev . _ * 56 * 340 ; see also van vleck j h 1928 _ phys . rev . _ * 31 * 587 , and pauli w 1933 _ handbuch der physik _ * 24 * , part 1 , eds . geiger h and scheel k ( berlin : springer ) , translated edition 1980 _ general principles of quantum mechanics _ ( berlin : springer ) p 86 . for a review of other derivations , applications and extensions , see epstein s t 1981 , in _ the force concept in chemistry _ ( new york : van nostrand reinhold ) ed . deb b m , p 1 . the condition @xmath553 also occurs nonrelativistically if a parameter @xmath533 is used in place of @xmath16 ; see , e.g. , goldstein et al @xcite , p.320 , or lanczos @xcite , p. 186 . doughty n a 1990 _ lagrangian interaction _ ( reading ma : addison - wesley ) p 416 ; leubner c 1986 _ eur . j. phys . _ * 7 * 17 ; johns o d 1985 _ am . _ * 53 * 982        dirac p a m 1964 _ lectures on quantum mechanics _ ( new york : yeshiva university and academic press ) p 9 ; arnold v i , kozlov v v and neishtadt a i 1988 in _ dynamical systems iii _ ed . arnold v i ( berlin : springer ) p 39    nonholonomic constraints @xmath798 contain the velocities @xmath799 , such that the constraints can not be integrated up to global coordinate constraints @xmath800 . nonholonomic constraints arise from introducing redundant variables as in sec.6 on relativistic mechanics , or by introducing constants of the motion as constraints @xcite as in app.ii for the mp , or by imposing the kinematic constraint between @xmath33 and the velocity or the momentum after first having released the constraint @xcite . nonholonomic constraints arise from physical forces of constraint , such as arise in rolling motion @xcite . kinematic nonholonomic constraints can be handled by an effective lagrangian @xmath801 , where @xmath802 are lagrange multipliers @xcite . dynamic nonholonomic constraints can not be handled by such an effective lagrangian ( contrary to what is stated in some excellent textbooks ) and construction of an hp or mp is highly problematic @xcite . papastavridis @xcite gives a clear discusion and references to the historical literature ; tabarrok b and rimrott f p j 1994 _ variational methods and complementary formulation in dynamics _ ( dordrecht : kluwer ) p 142 ; rund h 1966 _ the hamilton - jacobi theory in calculus of variations _ ( new york : van nostrund reinhold ) , reprinted by krieger 1973 , p 352 ; pars l a 1965 _ a treatise on analytic dynamics _ ( cambridge : cambridge u.p . ) , reprinted by ox bow press , 1979 , p 528 ; rumiantsev v v 1978 _ j. appl . math . and mech . _ * 42 * , 407 ; ibid . 1979 * 43 * 625 ; whittaker @xcite , p 249 ; saletan e j and cromer a h 1970 _ am . j. phys . _ * 38 * 892    another common choice is @xmath803 . this choice is known as the landau gauge ( in this gauge * a * is invariant under translations along the y axis ) . the first choice is known as the symmetric gauge ( because of the rotational invariance of * a * about the z axis ) . gibbs j w 1906 _ the scientific papers of j. willard gibbs , vol.1 , thermodynamics _ ( london : longmans , green ) , reprinted by dover , 1961 , p 56 . for modern treatments , see callen h b 1985 _ thermodynamics _ 2nd edition ( new york : wiley ) p 133 , and bailyn @xcite , p 224 . there are various ways to constrain the variation so that @xmath598 is selected . in principle , one can minimize the energy @xmath804 with the trial @xmath620 s restricted to be orthogonal to the exact @xmath805 . in practice , since @xmath805 are rarely known exactly , one can find an approximate @xmath598 by choosing trial @xmath620 s with @xmath43 nodes ( for 1d problems ) . alternatively , one can choose a trial @xmath620 which is known to be the @xmath43th eigenstate of a similar hamiltonian ( see sec . 3.1 for an example ) . frenkel j 1934 _ wave mechanics , advanced general theory _ ( oxford : oxford u.p . ) frenkel states that he took his argument from the appendix to the russian edition of dirac p a m 1930 _ the principles of quantum mechanics _ ( oxford : oxford u.p . ) , but we are unable to locate the argument in this reference . see also heisenberg w 1930 _ the physical principles of the quantum theory _ ( chicago : university of chicago press ) , reprinted by dover , 1960 , p 163    a minimum residual principle @xmath806 is similar to that of frenkel and dirac , and was proposed by mclachlan a d and bell m a 1964 _ rev . phys . _ * 36 * 844 . for recent applications of the frenkel - dirac variational principle to molecular and condensed matter problems , see e.g. refs @xcite and also beck m h , jackle a , worth g a and meyer h - d 2000 _ phys . rep . _ * 324 * 1 ; wang h 2000 _ j. chem . phys . _ * 113 * 9948 . schwinger j 1951 _ phys . rev . _ * 82 * 914 . the generalized operator uhp is @xmath807 ( allowing both final end parameters @xmath808 to vary , and fixing the initial ones @xmath809 ) , where @xmath810 is a heisenberg time - dependent operator , @xmath811 the action operator , and @xmath812 the lagrangian operator . if @xmath813 we get the operator uhp , @xmath814 , and if the end parameter variations both vanish , we get the operator hp , @xmath815 . from the generalized operator uhp schwinger derives what is nowadays known as the schwinger action principle for the variation of the propagator @xmath816 , where @xmath817 is the evolution operator , i.e. @xmath818 . here an arbitrary number of intermediate state parameters @xmath819 are allowed to vary on the left hand side , e.g. @xmath820 in @xmath821 , as well as the final end - state parameters @xmath822 . ( schwinger also discusses other possible variations ) . if there are no end - state parameter variations , then @xmath823 and hence @xmath824 . the analogy of the last relation with the classical hp is clearer when we write the classical hp as @xmath825 . schwinger s original paper discusses the case of relativistic quantum field theory . for a nonrelativistic quantum mechanics discussion , with examples , see schwinger s posthumously published lecture notes , schwinger j 2001 _ quantum mechanics _ ed englert b - g ( berlin : springer ) p 207 . for the connection to feynman s path integral expression for the propagator , see yourgrau and mandelstam , ref . @xcite , p 139 .              for vp s for diagonal and off - diagonal matrix elements of arbitrary operators , and for vp s for wave - functions , see gerjuoy et al @xcite and references therein . for a ground state energy vp based on path integrals , see feynman r p and hibbs a r 1965 _ quantum mechanics and path integrals _ ( new york : mcgraw - hill ) p 303 . for a vp for the ground state energy as a functional of the particle density ( density functional theory ) , see hohenberg p and kohn w 1964 _ phys . rev . _ * 136*b 864 . lwdin p o and mukherjee p k 1972 _ chem . * 14 * 1 ; kramer p and saraceno m 1981 _ geometry of the time - dependent variational principle in quantum mechanics _ ( new york : springer ) ; deumens e , diz a , longo r and hrn y 1994 _ rev . phys . _ * 66 * 917        these are often referred to as the de broglie - bohm or quantum hydrodynamic equations : see , e.g. , holland @xcite , p 15 and p 69 ; wyatt r e 2002 _ j. chem . phys _ * 117 * 956 ; kendrick b k 2003 _ j. chem . phys _ * 119 * 5805 , and references therein . the quantum continuity equation retains the same form ( 7.17 ) , and the quantum hamilton - jacobi equation takes the form ( 7.14 ) with an additional so - called quantum potential term @xmath826 added to @xmath34 . these equations can also be ( and are usually ) derived by substituting the madelung form ( 7.10 ) into the schrdinger equation ( 7.3 ) and using ( 7.4 ) .      in practice ( 7.18 ) is less useful for bound states than ( 7.1 ) since @xmath44 and @xmath620 are both unknown for bound states . for scattering states @xmath44 is known , and @xmath827 causes no problem in ( 7.18 ) , as it does in ( 7.1 ) .        in the present context , the normal form is a perturbation series , often generated by poisson bracket and lie transform methods , which expresses the system energy @xmath44 as a power series in the good actions @xmath783 , @xmath828 semiclassical quantization is achieved by the ebk substitution @xmath829 .    in molecular physics the quantized version of the normal form is usually referred to as the dunham expansion : see , e.g. , toda m 2002 _ adv . phys . _ * 123 * 153 ; herman m , lievin j , auwera j v and campargue a 1999 , _ adv . phys . _ * 108 * , 1      reddy j n 2002 _ energy principles and variational methods in applied mechanics _ ( new york : wiley ) the derivation of the einstein gravitational field equations from the einstein - hilbert action is the classic example : see , e.g. , landau and lifshitz @xcite , p 307        routh uses this method to , in effect , transform the original mp ( a2.3 ) into the unconstrained hamilton principle ( 2.8 ) , and from this he obtains the euler - lagrange equations of motions . pars uses a similar method to derive euler - lagrange equations from the original mp ; he however , allows @xmath301 to be a variable @xmath295 , and later finds it to be a constant after all . see routh e j 1905 _ advanced dynamics of a system of rigid bodies _ 6 ed ( london : macmillan ) , reprinted by dover , 1955 , p.306 , and pars @xcite , p 249 .
Abstract:

Answer: we review the development and practical uses of a generalized maupertuis least action principle in classical mechanics , in which the action is varied under the constraint of fixed energy for the trial trajectory . the original maupertuis ( euler - lagrange ) principle constrains the energy at every point along the trajectory . the generalized maupertuis principle is equivalent to hamilton s principle . reciprocal principles are also derived for both the generalized maupertuis and the hamilton principles . the reciprocal maupertuis principle is the classical limit of schrdinger s variational principle of wave mechanics , and is also very useful to solve practical problems in both classical and semiclassical mechanics , in complete analogy with the quantum rayleigh - ritz method . classical , semiclassical and quantum variational calculations are carried out for a number of systems , and the results are compared . pedagogical as well as research problems are used as examples , which include nonconservative as well as relativistic systems . ... the most beautiful and important    discovery of mechanics . "