What is the Correct Angle for Canonical Transformation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving the Hamiltonian H(p, q) = p^2 + 3pq + q^2 using a canonical transformation defined by p and q in terms of P and Q. The transformation aims to express the Hamiltonian in the form of a harmonic oscillator, but the participants find that their resulting expression H(P, Q) does not simplify to the desired form. They note that achieving a standard harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian would require specific conditions on the angle θ, particularly that cos 2θ = 0, suggesting θ = π/4 as a potential solution. However, they conclude that no choice of angle will eliminate the problematic 3PQ term. The conversation highlights the complexity of finding a suitable canonical transformation for this Hamiltonian.
Chen
Messages
976
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I need to solve the Hamiltonian of a one-dimensional system:

H(p, q) = p^2 + 3pq + q^2

And I've been instructed to do so using a canonical transformation of the form:

p = P \cos{\theta} + Q \sin{\theta}
q = -P \sin{\theta} + Q \cos{\theta}

And choosing the correct angle so as to the get the Hamiltonian of an harmonic oscillator.

Applying this transformation, I get:

H(P, Q) = P^2 + Q^2 - 3/2 (P^2 - Q^2) \sin{2 \theta} + 3 P Q \cos{2 \theta}

And as far as I can see, no choice of angle will get me to an Hamiltonian of an harmonic oscillator.

Am I correct? Can someone please check my calculation?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I got the same expression for H(P,Q) as you, and I can't see what angle would give a nice form either. You'd want to get something like

H(P,Q) = \frac{P^{2}}{2} + kQ^{2}

from which you can then get the frequency from, but that would want \sin 2\theta = \frac{1}{3} which isn't going to drop the 3PQ term you've got.
 
All you need is to get \cos 2\theta=0. So what about \theta=\pi/4?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top