Canonical transformation - derviation problem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical understanding of canonical transformations and the implications of adding total time derivatives to the Lagrangian function. Participants are exploring the derivation and significance of these transformations in the context of Hamiltonian mechanics, particularly in relation to Proposition 2.10 from a specific text.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why integrands can differ by more than a total time derivative of a function M without affecting the value of integrals, indicating a need for clarification on the derivation process.
  • Another participant suggests that understanding the claim requires reference to Proposition 2.10, implying that this proposition is central to the discussion.
  • A third participant explains that the Hamiltonian is derived from the Lagrangian through a Legendre transformation and states that adding a total time derivative to the Lagrangian does not affect the equations of motion, referencing the equivalence of the actions before and after this addition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants have not reached a consensus on the understanding of the implications of adding total time derivatives to the Lagrangian. There are differing levels of clarity and understanding regarding the derivation and its significance.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on Proposition 2.10, which remains unexamined in detail within the thread. There may be assumptions about the participants' familiarity with the underlying concepts of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics that are not explicitly stated.

Vicol
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Let me show you part of a book "Mechanics From Newton’s Laws to Deterministic Chaos" by Florian Scheck.

OV5cnfT.png


I do not understand why these integrands can differ by more than time derivative of some function M. Why doesn't it change the value of integrals?

It seems this point is crucial for me to get into generating functions (and then to Hamilton-Jacobi functions) but I won't proceed until I fully understand derviations. So can anyone explain mathematical story of the derviation?
 

Attachments

  • OV5cnfT.png
    OV5cnfT.png
    46.6 KB · Views: 1,232
Physics news on Phys.org
The claim depends on Proposition 2.10 so it is more likely that help can be provided if you can show Proposition 2.10.
 
fMWckum.png
 

Attachments

  • fMWckum.png
    fMWckum.png
    42.6 KB · Views: 966
That's because the Hamiltionian function is defined as the "Legendre Transformation" of the Lagrangian function or, in practice:

$$H = \sum \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q_i}} \dot{q_i} - L $$ so the integrand function in (2.78) is nothing but the Lagrangian function. As you should know and as the proposition 2.10 says (and proves!) adding the total time derivative of a function ##M(q,t)## to the Lagrangian does not affect the motion described by the Lagrangian itself. You can visualize it by this way:

Let ##L(q, \dot{q}, t)## be a Lagrangian function, we now define ##L'(q, \dot{q}, t)= L(q, \dot{q}, t) + \frac{dM(q,t)}{dt}##. We define the action as
$$ S' = \int_{t_1} ^{t_2} L'(q,\dot{q}, t)dt = \int_{t_1} ^{t_2} L(q,\dot{q}, t) dt + \int_{t_1} ^{t_2} \frac{dM(q,t)}{dt} dt = S + M(q_2,t_2) - M(q_1,t_1) = S + constant$$
where clearly ## S= \int_{t_1} ^{t_2} L(q,\dot{q}, t)dt##. Now you can se that the condition ## \delta S' = 0## is perfectly equivalent to ##\delta S=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vicol

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K