Closed trajectories in phase space

AI Thread Summary
To prove that a trajectory in phase space is closed, one must demonstrate that the system's equations of motion result in periodic solutions. In the given example, the energy expression indicates that trajectories are closed, but a formal proof requires more than just plotting. The user suggests that finding a relationship between momentum and position, p(x), could help establish closed orbits. However, they seek a more elementary method, as they are not yet familiar with Hamiltonian formalism. Ultimately, proving closed trajectories may involve showing that the total energy remains constant throughout the motion.
ralqs
Messages
97
Reaction score
1
In general, how do you prove that a given trajectory in phase space is closed?

For example, suppose the energy E of a one-dimensional system is given by E=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^2 +\frac{1}{2}x^2 + \frac{\epsilon}{4}x^4, where ε is a positive constant. Now, I can easily show that all phase trajectories, regardless of energy, are closed by just plotting the various trajectories. But how do I prove it?

I can show that for any (positive) value of E, there's a value of x such that dx/dt is zero. But does this *prove* that the phase trajectories are closed? If it does, I don't see how.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could always just use the Hamilton equations to solve for the equations of motion p(t) and x(t) and then solve them for each other to get something like p(x) and show that this results in closed orbits.

Are you asking for a simpler way to do it?
 
Matterwave said:
Are you asking for a simpler way to do it?

Yes. Especially because I haven't yet learned the Hamiltonian formalism. I would think that there's a more or less elementary way to show \dot{x}^2 + x^2 + \frac{\epsilon}{2}x^4 =\mathrm{constant} closes on itself, but try as I might I can't come up with anything...
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top