- #1
JonnyMaddox
- 74
- 1
Helloo,
I don't understand how one arrives at the conclusion that the hamiltonian is a generating function.
When you have an infinitesimal canonical transformation like:
[itex]Q_{i}=q_{i}+ \delta q_{i}[/itex]
[itex]P_{i}=p_{i}+\delta p_{i}[/itex]
Then the generating function is:
[itex]F_{2}=q_{i}P_{i}+ \epsilon G(q,P,t)[/itex]
Then the transformation equations are:
[itex]p_{j} = \frac{\partial F_{2} }{\partial q_{j} }= P_{j}+ \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial q_{j}}[/itex]
[itex]\delta p_{j} = P_{j}-p_{j} = -\epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial q_{j}}[/itex]
and
[itex]Q_{j} = \frac{\partial F_{2} }{ \partial P_{j}}=q_{j}+ \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial P_{j}}[/itex]
[itex]\delta q_{j} = Q_{j}-q_{j} = \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial P_{j}}[/itex]
Leading to:
[itex]\delta p_{j} = -\epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial q_{j}}[/itex]
and
[itex]\delta q_{j} = \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial p_{j}}[/itex]
Which look super similar to Hamilton's equations of course.
Then the poisson brackets, out of nowhere, referring only to the definition, tell you that:
[itex]\dot{q_{i}} = [q_{i},H][/itex]
[itex]\dot{p_{i}} = [p_{i},H][/itex]
And then one says, OH GOD that looks like [itex]G[/itex] was secretly the Hamiltonian [itex]H[/itex], let's say [itex]H[/itex] is the generator of time evolution !
And then I don't understand why the hamiltonian appears in something which needs the definition of the hamiltonian. Aren't canonical transformations definied in that they satisfy the principle of least action(among other things), which then includes the old hamiltonian and the new one. How can then the hamiltonian arise again out of that? How is this put together??
Greets
I don't understand how one arrives at the conclusion that the hamiltonian is a generating function.
When you have an infinitesimal canonical transformation like:
[itex]Q_{i}=q_{i}+ \delta q_{i}[/itex]
[itex]P_{i}=p_{i}+\delta p_{i}[/itex]
Then the generating function is:
[itex]F_{2}=q_{i}P_{i}+ \epsilon G(q,P,t)[/itex]
Then the transformation equations are:
[itex]p_{j} = \frac{\partial F_{2} }{\partial q_{j} }= P_{j}+ \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial q_{j}}[/itex]
[itex]\delta p_{j} = P_{j}-p_{j} = -\epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial q_{j}}[/itex]
and
[itex]Q_{j} = \frac{\partial F_{2} }{ \partial P_{j}}=q_{j}+ \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial P_{j}}[/itex]
[itex]\delta q_{j} = Q_{j}-q_{j} = \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial P_{j}}[/itex]
Leading to:
[itex]\delta p_{j} = -\epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial q_{j}}[/itex]
and
[itex]\delta q_{j} = \epsilon \frac{\partial G}{\partial p_{j}}[/itex]
Which look super similar to Hamilton's equations of course.
Then the poisson brackets, out of nowhere, referring only to the definition, tell you that:
[itex]\dot{q_{i}} = [q_{i},H][/itex]
[itex]\dot{p_{i}} = [p_{i},H][/itex]
And then one says, OH GOD that looks like [itex]G[/itex] was secretly the Hamiltonian [itex]H[/itex], let's say [itex]H[/itex] is the generator of time evolution !
And then I don't understand why the hamiltonian appears in something which needs the definition of the hamiltonian. Aren't canonical transformations definied in that they satisfy the principle of least action(among other things), which then includes the old hamiltonian and the new one. How can then the hamiltonian arise again out of that? How is this put together??
Greets