Can a Hamiltonian be formed from this Lagrangian?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of deriving equations of motion from a specific Lagrangian, L = (1/2)m(ṡq₁ - ṡq₂)² - V(q₁, q₂). It highlights the inability to express generalized velocities in terms of momenta due to the relationship p₁ = -p₂, leading to a degeneracy in the system. The Hamiltonian formulation struggles with this degeneracy, as it cannot differentiate between the two degrees of freedom. A proposed solution involves redefining the coordinates to q = q₁ - q₂, simplifying the analysis and allowing for a clearer formulation of the problem. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of selecting appropriate variables to resolve issues in Lagrangian mechanics.
pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
L=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{q}_1-\dot{q}_2)^2-V(q_1,q_2)

Because if we put

p_1=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_1}
p_2=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_2}

we get

p_1=-p_2=m(\dot{q}_1-\dot{q}_2)

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

H=p_1\dot{q}_1+p_2\dot{q}_2-L

=p_1(\dot{q}_1-\dot{q}_2)-L

=\frac{p_1^2}{m}-L

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

or equivalently

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

or

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


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

\dot{q_j}=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_j}

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 V(q_1,q_2)=V(q_1-q_2) 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 Q_1 = q_1 - q_2, Q_2 = q_1 + q_2. Take derivatives with respect to these new variables.

\mathcal L = \frac{\dot{Q_1}^2}{2m} - V\left(\frac{Q_1+Q_2}{2},\frac{Q_2-Q_1}{2}\right)
 
Quite right. Thanks, both.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top