ABSTRACT
Hamiltonian calculus originated as the mathematical counterpart of the physics of energy in the mid-nineteenth century. Economists have recently adopted the Hamiltonian formalism to develop the theory of optimal growth.1 To what extent, the essay asks, have economists remarked upon the formal analogy between dynamic optimization in economics and in energetics? To what extent has the fact that the discourses of energetics and economics both translate into a common mathematical language served to legitimize economics? Have economists good reason to think that the analogy is empirically justified? Has the Hamiltonian formalism given economists the power to think freshly about problems of economic growth? Do economic growth theorists attempt to use the formalism adopted from energetics in ways that conflict with restraints imposed by the formalism? Is the calculus overly constrictive? That is, has the calculus, in inducing economists to ignore what it cannot handle, too narrowly circumscribed the issues that economists can treat in dealing with growth?
