Can anyone help me make the connection here

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayrey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Connection
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the Poisson bracket of a function F and the Hamiltonian H, expressed as [F,H] = dF/dt - ∂F/∂t. The total derivative dF/dt accounts for changes in F due to time-dependent coordinates and momenta, while the partial derivative ∂F/∂t only considers explicit time dependence. The distinction arises because F is a function of multiple variables, leading to different interpretations of how it changes over time. The Hamilton-Jacobi equations can be employed to derive the equation in terms of H, reinforcing the connection between these concepts. This notation is commonly accepted despite the potential for confusion regarding the different types of derivatives.
rayrey
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
if F is any function and H is the hamiltonian, then the Poisson Bracket of F and H, is given by:

[F,H] = dF/dt - \partialF/\partialt

Can someone show me how the right side of this equation comes about?
Also how can the normal derivative of F w.r.t t be different from the partial of F w.r.t t?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In this case, where F is any function of coordinates and momenta (i.e. F=F(t,q,p), where the position and momentum depend upon time) the total derivative of F with respect to time will be \frac{dF}{dt}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial q}\frac{d q}{dt}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}\frac{dp}{dt}.

Now, use the Hamilton-Jacobi equations, to get the equation in terms of H, and use the definition of the Poisson Bracket of H and F to get the equation in the required form.
 
rayrey said:
Also how can the normal derivative of F w.r.t t be different from the partial of F w.r.t t?

This is a standard abuse of notation.

Suppose, for example, F = F \left( q, p, t \right) (F:\mathbb{R}^3 \leftarrow \mathbb{R}), and q = q \left( t \right) and p = p \left( t \right) (i.e., each is a map from \mathbb{R} to \mathbb{R}).

Define a new function \tilde{F} \left( t \right) = F\left( q\left(t) , p\left(t)\right), t \right) (another map from \mathbb{R} to \mathbb{R}) by composition of functions. The multivariable chain rule then gives

<br /> \frac{d \tilde{F}}{dt} = \frac{\partial F}{\partial q} \frac{dq}{dt} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial p} \frac{dp}{dt} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial t}.<br />

Even though F and \tilde{F} are different functions, as they have different domains, it is standard to omit the twiddle.
 
Last edited:
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