Can Canonical Transformations Preserve the Physics of Different Systems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter madness
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformations
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Canonical transformations serve to link different physical systems by transforming their coordinates while preserving the underlying physics. They can describe a damped harmonic oscillator in terms of an undamped oscillator, provided the transformation equations are time-dependent. These transformations maintain the symplectic structure of phase space, analogous to how linear transformations preserve the structure of vector spaces. The preservation of structure is crucial in various fields, including classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and complex analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of canonical transformations in classical mechanics
  • Familiarity with symplectic structure and Hamilton's equations
  • Basic knowledge of linear transformations in vector space theory
  • Concepts of diffeomorphisms and conformal transformations in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of canonical transformations in classical mechanics
  • Explore the relationship between symplectic structure and Hamiltonian systems
  • Investigate the role of linear transformations in vector space theory
  • Learn about the Erlangen program and its implications for geometry
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students of classical mechanics seeking to understand the relationship between different physical systems through canonical transformations.

madness
Messages
813
Reaction score
69
Do canonical transformations simply transform the coordinates of a particular system, leaving the physics unchanged? or can they transform between physically different systems? I haven't seen any evidence which shows that they keep the physics the same, but I don't see their usefulness otherwise.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They do both, actually. In other words, they establish a link between different physical systems, such that one can be described in terms of the other.

For example, one canonical transformation can describe a damped harmonic oscillator in terms of variables that behave like an undamped oscillator (obviously, the transformation equations must be time-dependent for this to work). This allows us to talk about one problem in terms of another, perhaps simpler, problem.
 
Canonical transformations are important for classical mechanics for the same reason linear transformations are important for vector space theory. The important structure on a vector space is its linear structure, and linear transformations are transformations that preserve this. The important structure on phase space is the symplectic structure, and canonical transformations preserve this.

Similarly, diffeomorphims are important in the theory of smooth manifolds, and conformal transformations are important in complex analysis and Riemann surface theory, and Unitary transformations are important in quantum mechanics. All these transformations preserve the relevant structure. The structure is usually defined by an algebra on the set, like multilinear/tensor algebra on vector spaces, or the Poisson bracket algebra on phase space for classical mechanics, or the inner product on quantum mechanical Hilbert spaces. But another point of view of thinking about the structure of sets was pioneered by Felix Klein, i.e. defining the structure of the sets by giving the transformations that preserve that structure. This is the idea behind the Erlangen program.
 
Last edited:
So canonical transformations are changes of coordinate systems and the transformed system is the same as the old but viewed in the new coordinates?
The fact that they are canonical is what preserves the symplectic structure and hence ensures we are still looking at the same system. Is this correct?
 
Symplectic structure is not structure of any particular system, its the structure of phase space itself for all systems.
 
I still don't see how you know the transformed system is the same as the original. The derivation involves applying the modified Hamilton's principle to both systems, so that they both satisfy Hamilton's equations. Couldn't this be done for any two systems, whether they are the same or not? I can't find anything in the derivation which requires the two systems to be the same physically.
 
In sci-fi when an author is talking about space travellers or describing the movement of galaxies they will say something like “movement in space only means anything in relation to another object”. Examples of this would be, a space ship moving away from earth at 100 km/s, or 2 galaxies moving towards each other at one light year per century. I think it would make it easier to describe movement in space if we had three axis that we all agree on and we used 0 km/s relative to the speed of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K