Calculating generator function in canonical transformation

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the generator function for a canonical transformation, an example using a type 2 generator function F2(q,P,t) is provided, where new canonical variables are expressed in terms of old variables. The transformation involves spatial coordinates and momenta, specifically x = x' + Vt and px = mV + px'. The relationships for the generator function are established through partial derivatives, leading to the integration of the equation. The final form of the generator function is F2 = (mV + px')x - Vtpx', which accounts for the necessary adjustments in momentum transformation. This example illustrates the process of determining the generator function in classical mechanics.
Sourabh N
Messages
634
Reaction score
0
I'm searching for an example of how to find out generator function for a canonical transformation, when new canonical variables are given in terms of old variables. Any help is greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
See any classical mechanics textbook, such as Goldstein.
 
Let us take, for example, a generator function of type 2 (please see goldstein), i.e , F2(q,P,t) function of the old coordinates (q) and the new momenta (P), and consider the following non-relativistic transformation:

x=x'+Vt , x'- new (spacial) coordinate
t=t' , (time remains the same)

as you can see, you will also have to know how the momenta transforms (in order to determine F2)

px=mV+px' , px' new momentum (px'=P, if you prefer)

For the type 2 generator function,

p=dF2/dq (partial derivative)
Q=dF2/dP (partial derivative)

So, all you have to do is integrate, i.e

px is your old momentum, therefore F2 = (mV+px')x + A
now let's determine A,

"A" is not a constant because if you take dF2/dP it won't equal the new momenta. There's still a " - Vtpx' "
lacking in the equation (with the minus sign included).
Well if that quatity is missing , all we have to do is add it to the equation (A=-Vtpx').

So here it is, the F2(q,P,t) generator function for this non-relativistic transformation is:

F2 = (mV+px')x - Vtpx'

I down know if there is another (better) way to do it, but I hope it helps.

Best regards

Rico B.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top