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'
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...
I passed a motorcycle on the highway going the opposite direction. I know I was doing 125/km/h. I estimated that the frequency of his motor dropped by an entire octave, so that's a doubling of the wavelength. My intuition is telling me that's extremely unlikely. I can't actually calculate how fast he was going with just that information, can I? It seems to me, I have to know the absolute frequency of one of those tones, either shifted up or down or unshifted, yes? I tried to mimic the...
Back
Top