A Canonical transformation - derviation problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding why integrands can differ by a total time derivative without affecting the value of integrals, which is crucial for grasping generating functions and Hamilton-Jacobi functions. The key point is that adding a total time derivative of a function M to the Lagrangian does not alter the motion described by it, as demonstrated in Proposition 2.10. This is illustrated through the definition of the action, showing that the variation in the action remains unchanged despite the addition of the time derivative term. The equivalence of the conditions for stationary action (δS' = 0 and δS = 0) is emphasized. Understanding this concept is essential for progressing in canonical transformations and related topics in mechanics.
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: 1,163
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: 920
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 Vicol
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