1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Canonical Transformations

  1. Jul 7, 2013 #1
    Background

    For which of the invertible transformations [itex](\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{p}) \leftrightarrow(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{P})[/itex]
    [itex]\mathbf{Q}(\mathbf {q}, \mathbf {p}, t)[/itex]
    [itex]\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf {p}, t)[/itex]
    is it so that for every Hamiltonian [itex]\mathcal{H}(\mathbf {q}, \mathbf {p}, t)[/itex] there is a [itex]\mathcal{K}[/itex] such that
    [tex]\dot{Q}_i = \frac{\partial\mathcal{K}}{\partial P_i} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \dot{P}_i = -\frac{\partial\mathcal{K}}{\partial Q_i}\; ?[/tex]
    Stationary action should correspond, and that condition is met if

    [itex]\sum p_i\dot{q}_i - \mathcal{H} = \sum P_i\dot{Q}_i - \mathcal{K} + \frac{dF}{dt}[/itex],

    since integrating [itex]\frac{dF}{dt}[/itex] results in something only dependent of the endpoints.

    Question
    Consider this part of Goldstein's Classical Mechanics.

    m3icfYL.png

    rearranging 9.13 to make this clear:

    [tex]\mathcal{K} = \mathcal{H} + \frac{\partial F_1}{\partial t} + \sum_i \dot{Q}_i\left(P_i - \frac{\partial F_1}{\partial Q_i} \right) + \sum_i \dot{q}_i\left(\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial q_i} - p_i\right)[/tex]
    I guess I might like this explained a more. Why aren't we able to to have the coefficients of [itex]\dot{q}_i[/itex] or [itex]\dot{Q}_i[/itex] be non-zero, and have the difference absorbed into [itex]\mathcal{K}[/itex] ?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2013 #2
    it's because K should not depend on the derivates of Q and q
     
  4. Jul 8, 2013 #3

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    I would argue as follows. The Hamiltonian version of the action is
    [tex]S[x,p]=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t [\dot{q}^k p_k - H(t,q,p)].[/tex]
    The trajectory in phase space is determined as the stationary point of this functional with the boundary values [itex]q(t_1)[/itex] and [itex]q(t_2)[/itex] fixed.

    Now if you want to determine new phase-space coordinates [itex](Q,P)[/itex] that describe the same system in the new coordinates by the variational principle, i.e., such that the phase-space trajectories are described by the Hamilton canonical equations, you must have
    [tex]\mathrm{d} q^k p_k - \mathrm{d} Q^k P_k - \mathrm{d} t (H-K)=\mathrm{d} f.[/tex]
    From this it is clear that the "natural" independent variables for [itex]f[/itex] are [itex]q[/itex], [itex]Q[/itex], and [itex]t[/itex]. Then comparing the differential on each side leads to
    [tex]p_k=\frac{\partial f}{\partial q^k}, \quad P_k=-\frac{\partial f}{\partial Q^k}, \quad K=H+\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}.[/tex]
    Then you can go over to other pairs of old and new independent phase-space variables in the "generator" using appropriate Legendre transformations.
     
  5. Sep 23, 2014 #4
    Jul 7, 2013 #1
    MisterX
    avatar_m.png
    Messages:
    585
    Background

    For which of the invertible transformations (q,p)↔(Q,P)
    Q(q,p,t)
    P(q,p,t)
    is it so that for every Hamiltonian H(q,p,t) there is a K such that
    Q˙i=∂K∂PiP˙i=−∂K∂Qi?


    Is It show that K is dependent upon (P, Q) not in Derivative of (P, Q)? plz.

    also show that
    Q˙i=∂K∂PiP˙i=−∂K∂Qi?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Canonical Transformations
Loading...