Can a Hamiltonian be formed from this Lagrangian?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pellman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hamiltonian Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of forming a Hamiltonian from a given Lagrangian, specifically focusing on the implications of the Lagrangian's structure and the resulting equations of motion. The scope includes theoretical considerations in classical mechanics and the relationship between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a Lagrangian and derives expressions for momenta, noting the inability to invert these to express velocities in terms of momenta.
  • Another participant suggests that the potential must be of a specific form (V(q_1,q_2)=V(q_1-q_2)) to avoid issues with the definition of the problem, highlighting the degeneracy in degrees of freedom.
  • A different approach is proposed by changing the basis of the Lagrangian to new variables, which may resolve the issues encountered with the original formulation.
  • A later reply acknowledges the contributions of the previous participants without introducing new claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which a Hamiltonian can be formed from the given Lagrangian, with no consensus reached on the best approach to resolve the issues presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the definitions of the variables and the structure of the potential, as well as the implications of degeneracy in the degrees of freedom.

pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
[tex]L=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{q}_1-\dot{q}_2)^2-V(q_1,q_2)[/tex]

Because if we put

[tex]p_1=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_1}[/tex]
[tex]p_2=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_2}[/tex]

we get

[tex]p_1=-p_2=m(\dot{q}_1-\dot{q}_2)[/tex]

We can't invert to get [tex]\dot{q_1}[/tex] in terms of the two momenta. We can still write down a Hamiltonian of sorts since

[tex]H=p_1\dot{q}_1+p_2\dot{q}_2-L[/tex]

[tex]=p_1(\dot{q}_1-\dot{q}_2)-L[/tex]

[tex]=\frac{p_1^2}{m}-L[/tex]

[tex]=\frac{p_1^2}{2m}+V(q_1,q_2)[/tex]

or equivalently

[tex]=\frac{p_2^2}{2m}+V(q_1,q_2)[/tex]

or

[tex]=\frac{p_1^2}{4m}+\frac{p_2^2}{4m}+V(q_1,q_2)[/tex]


The main thing then is that we can't get an equation of motion which looks like

[tex]\dot{q_j}=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_j}[/tex]

What do we do with Lagrangians like this? Does the Hamiltonian method just fail?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you'll find that the only potential that doesn't cause a problem is the one where [itex]V(q_1,q_2)=V(q_1-q_2)[/itex] Otherwise, your problem is not well-defined.

The q1 and q2 can increase/decrease simultaneously with zero generalized momentum. If that makes change in potential, you effectively have a mode with zero mass and finite force. That's bad.

That's really what you are seeing near the end. You really only have one degree of freedom: q1-q2. You tried to write the equation as if there are two. You ended up with a degeneracy. So naturally, the Hamiltonian cannot be used to distinguish two degenerate degrees of freedom. Define the new coordinate q=(q1-q2), and the problem resolves itself.
 
Try changing your lagrangian's basis. Let [itex]Q_1 = q_1 - q_2[/itex], [itex]Q_2 = q_1 + q_2[/itex]. Take derivatives with respect to these new variables.

[tex]\mathcal L = \frac{\dot{Q_1}^2}{2m} - V\left(\frac{Q_1+Q_2}{2},\frac{Q_2-Q_1}{2}\right)[/tex]
 
Quite right. Thanks, both.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K