Hamiltonian mechanics: canonical transformations

In summary, the conversation discusses the Hamiltonian formalism, specifically the role of the function K(Q,P,t) as the Hamiltonian for canonical coordinates Q and P. The question is raised whether it is necessary to express all the q-dot terms in terms of q and p before transforming the Hamiltonian into K(Q,P,t), or if it is possible to compute q-dot(Q,dot{Q},P,dot{P}) and substitute. It is mentioned that, in most cases, the Lagrangian is quadratic in q-dot, making the equations linear and solvable. However, for exotic Lagrangians, this may not be the case. It is clarified that, in these situations, it is still possible to construct a coherent
  • #1
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,807
32
Say I have a canonical transformation Q(q,p), P(q,p).

In the {q,p} canonical coordinates, the Hamiltonian is

[tex]H(q,p,t)=p\dot{q}-L(q,\dot{q},t)[/tex]

And the function [itex]K(Q,P,t)=H(q(Q,P),p(Q,P),t)[/itex] plays the role of hamiltonian for the canonical coordinates Q and P in the sense that

[tex]\dot{Q}=\frac{\partial K}{\partial P}, \ \ \ \ \ \ -\dot{P}=\frac{\partial K}{\partial Q}[/tex]

My question is this: must I first express all the [itex]\dot{q}[/itex] in there in terms of q and p before transforming my Hamiltonian into [itex]K(Q,P,t)=H(q(Q,P),p(Q,P),t)[/itex], or can I just compute [itex]\dot{q}(Q,\dot{Q},P,\dot{P})[/itex] and substitute?

A priori, I would say that it is certainly not necessary and that the two ways are equivalent [that is, in the event that it is even possible to invert [itex]p=\partial L /\partial \dot{q}[/itex] !], but I have evidence that it's not and that the second way leads to equations of motion that are wrong. :frown:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I suppose I found the answer to my question on wiki:

Hamilton's equations are first-order differential equations, and thus easier to solve than Lagrange's equations, which are second-order. However, the steps leading to the equations of motion are more onerous than in Lagrangian mechanics - beginning with the generalized coordinates and the Lagrangian, we must calculate the Hamiltonian, express each generalized velocity in terms of the conjugate momenta, and replace the generalized velocities in the Hamiltonian with the conjugate momenta.

But then, wouldn't this suggest that some problems simply are not solvable in hamiltonian formulation? Namely, those for which

[tex]p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}[/tex]

is not solvable for [itex]\dot{q}[/itex].
 
  • #3
quasar987 said:
I

But then, wouldn't this suggest that some problems simply are not solvable in hamiltonian formulation? Namely, those for which

[tex]p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}[/tex]

is not solvable for [itex]\dot{q}[/itex].

Nice question! Now, in most cases, the lagrangian is quadratic in q-dot, so the equations you write down are linear equations.

I guess that very exotic lagrangians might give a headache in inverting this system, though.
 
  • #4
quasar987 said:
I suppose I found the answer to my question on wiki:

Hamilton's equations are first-order differential equations, and thus easier to solve than Lagrange's equations, which are second-order. However, the steps leading to the equations of motion are more onerous than in Lagrangian mechanics - beginning with the generalized coordinates and the Lagrangian, we must calculate the Hamiltonian, express each generalized velocity in terms of the conjugate momenta, and replace the generalized velocities in the Hamiltonian with the conjugate momenta.

But then, wouldn't this suggest that some problems simply are not solvable in hamiltonian formulation? Namely, those for which

[tex]p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}[/tex]

is not solvable for [itex]\dot{q}[/itex].

They are solvable. It's always possible to construct a coherent Hamiltonian formalism for a system which has basically an arbitrary lagrangian. It just takes a special techinique.

For example the Dirac field is completely solvable, even though the lagrangian (density) is not quadratic in "velocities"...
 

1. What is Hamiltonian mechanics?

Hamiltonian mechanics is a mathematical framework used to describe the motion of systems with changing energy levels. It is a branch of classical mechanics that was developed by William Rowan Hamilton in the 19th century.

2. What are canonical transformations in Hamiltonian mechanics?

Canonical transformations are transformations of the coordinates and momenta of a system that preserve the Hamiltonian equations of motion. They are symplectic transformations, which means they preserve the symplectic structure of phase space.

3. Why are canonical transformations important?

Canonical transformations are important because they allow us to transform a complicated Hamiltonian system into a simpler one that is easier to solve. They also provide a way to find new conserved quantities, which can be used to better understand the dynamics of the system.

4. What is the difference between a canonical transformation and a point transformation?

A canonical transformation is a type of point transformation that preserves the Hamiltonian equations of motion. Point transformations, in general, can change the form of the equations of motion and do not necessarily preserve the symplectic structure of phase space.

5. How are canonical transformations related to Lagrangian mechanics?

Canonical transformations are closely related to Lagrangian mechanics because both are ways of describing the dynamics of a system. Lagrangian mechanics uses generalized coordinates and velocities to describe the motion, while Hamiltonian mechanics uses generalized coordinates and momenta. Canonical transformations can be used to transform between the two formulations.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
680
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
720
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
919
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
973
  • Mechanics
Replies
24
Views
974
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
685
Back
Top