Are Canonical Transformations the Key to Understanding Hamiltonian Dynamics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter newton_1372
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Canonical transformations in Hamiltonian dynamics are defined by the existence of a new Hamiltonian K and a function F that satisfy a specific equation involving the original Hamiltonian H. To prove a transformation is canonical, it is necessary and sufficient that the Poisson bracket {Q_i, P_j} equals the Kronecker delta δ_ij. The discussion also highlights that while preserving the Hamiltonian form of equations of motion ensures the conservation of Poisson brackets, it does not uniquely define canonical transformations. The relationship between transformations that satisfy the first condition and those that maintain the Hamiltonian form of equations of motion is explored, indicating a deeper connection in Hamiltonian mechanics. Understanding these transformations is crucial for grasping the complexities of Hamiltonian dynamics.
newton_1372
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I have a system described by the hamiltonian H in the coordinates i, p_i. A transformation of the type
$Q_i = Q_i(q_i, p_i)$ is called "canonical" if exists a new Hamiltonian, say K(Q,P), and a function F(Q_i,P_i,q_i,p_i) such that is verified

p\dot q_i-H=P_i\dot Q_i-K+\frac{dF}{dt}

How can i prove that a trasformation is canonical (in this sense) if and only if
\{Q_i,P_j\}=\delta_{ij}
when {} are the Poisson's braket?

I'd wish to understand another thing regardind that. I found a derivation that shows that is sufficient that is been conserved the hamiltonian form of equations of motion to conserve poisson brakets...but we know that the transformations satisfing 1). are not the unique to conserve the hamiltonian form of eq. of motion...so, what is the link between these 2 sets of trasformations?

SETS 1. Trasformations such that exists K, and F t.c. the eq. 1). is satisfied.
SETS 2. Trasformations such that exists K satisfing the equation of motion of Hamilton:
\dot Q = \frac{\partial K}{\partial P}\\ \dot P = -\frac{\partial K}{\partial Q}
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Upping
 
Up up up
 
up up up
 
up up up up
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top