Conserved quantities via Poisson brackets

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Poisson brackets in the context of conserved quantities, specifically focusing on the Hamiltonian and angular momentum in a physical system. Participants are exploring the implications of their calculations and the conditions under which certain terms may vanish.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are rewriting the Hamiltonian and angular momentum from vector to scalar notation and applying Poisson brackets to analyze conserved quantities. There is an exploration of terms that become zero and the implications of index manipulation on the results.

Discussion Status

Some participants are actively checking their calculations and reasoning through the implications of their results. There is a recognition of the need to ensure proper index notation and summation in their expressions. Guidance has been provided regarding the handling of indices and the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the information they can share or the methods they can use. There is a focus on ensuring that the observable quantities are conserved, which is central to the discussion.

Lambda96
Messages
233
Reaction score
77
Homework Statement
Show that ##L_j^{(1)}+L_j^{(2)}## is preserved
Relevant Equations
See screenshot
Hi,

Results from the previous task, which we may use
Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-15 um 19.12.52.png
I am unfortunately stuck with the following task
Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png


Hi,

I have first started to rewrite the Hamiltonian and the angular momentum from vector notation to scalar notation:

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\vec{p_1}^2+\frac{1}{2m}\vec{p_2}^2-\alpha|\vec{q_1}- \vec{q_2}|^2= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{1i}^2+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{2i}^2-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2$$

$$L_j^{(1)}+L_j^{(2)}=\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}+\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(2)}p_l^{(2)}$$

Before inserting the above values into the Poisson bracket, I have rewritten the Poisson bracket as follows

$$\{ H,L_j^{(1)}+L_j^{(2)} \}=\{ H,L_j^{(1)}\}+\{H,L_j^{(2)} \}$$

To save paperwork, I will now only calculate ##\{ H,L_j^{(1)}\}##. the calculation for ##L_j^{(2)## would run analogously

$$\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{1i}^2+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{2i}^2-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$
$$\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{1i}^2,\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}+ \{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{2i}^2,\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}+ \{-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$
 

Attachments

  • Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    61.8 KB · Views: 187
  • Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    61.8 KB · Views: 161
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Because of the previous problem, the terms with ##q^2## become zero, so ##\{ \vec{q}^2,L_j \}=0## also the terms with the different variables become zero and only the following term remains

$$\{-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$

Now you can square the bracket off and get ##q^2## terms again, which again add up to zero, leaving only the following term.

$$\{\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}q_{1i}q_{2i}, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$

For the left-hand side I have now used Leibniz's rule and the following applies to the term then ##\{q_{2i},q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)} \}=0## and the following term remains

$$\{\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}q_{1i}, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}q_{2i}$$

Now you can factor out some terms and get the following representation

$$\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}\{q_{1i}, q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}q_{2i}$$

Now you can use the result from the previous task and get

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}$$

for the calculation ##\{H,L_j^{(2)} \}## I got the following ##\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}##, so I get as final result:

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$

Actually, the result should be 0 in order to conserve the observable, have I miscalculated somewhere or can I still zero the above term with an index manipulation?

Sorry to split my calculation into two posts, but when I do the whole calculation in one post, it is not displayed correctly.
 
Lambda96 said:
so I get as final result:
$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$
Actually, the result should be 0
I think you are essentially there. Play with the expression above and see if you can see why it equals 0. Note that ##k## and ##i## are dummy summation indices.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lambda96
Thank you for your help TSny 👍👍

I have now proceeded as follows

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$

Now in the second term I have swapped the indices of ##q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}## to ##q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}##.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}$$

By doing this, I have made an anticyclic permutation to the Levi-Civita symbol, which makes it negative and I can write the above equation as follows.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}-\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_j^{(1)}=0$$
 
Lambda96 said:
I have now proceeded as follows

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$

Now in the second term I have swapped the indices of ##q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}## to ##q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}##.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}$$
This looks good. Note that the index ##j## is a fixed index that is not summed. It corresponds to the fixed index ##j## that you started with in the expression ##\{H, L_j^{(1)}\}##. The reason that you were allowed to swap the indices ##i## and ##k## in the second term is that you are summing over ##i## and ##k##. That is, the equality $$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)} =\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}$$ should actually be written as $$\sum_{k, i}\left(\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)} \right) =\sum_{k, i}\left(\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}\right)$$ It's only because of the summation over ##i## and ##k## that we have equality of these two expressions.

Let me know if this is not clear.

Lambda96 said:
By doing this, I have made an anticyclic permutation to the Levi-Civita symbol, which makes it negative and I can write the above equation as follows.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}-\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_j^{(1)}=0$$
The second term is not correct. Double-check this term to make sure this is what you intended to type. The index ##j## should still be a fixed index that occurs only in the levi-civita symbol and a summation over ##k## and ##i## should be included.
 
Thank you for your help and explanation TSny 👍👍👍

In my notes I had included the sum over k and had unfortunately forgotten to include this in my post 4, but in my notes I had forgotten the sum over i in the course of the calculation, thanks to your explanation I have now noticed this, thank you very much.

Unfortunately I can't quite understand why I wrote j instead of k in my last equation, probably I just did too much index notation the last couple of days :smile:

Thanks again for your help 👍
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TSny
One can also argue without any calculation ;-)). The total angular momentum ##\vec{J}=\vec{L}^{(1)}+\vec{L}^{(2)}## generate rotations for all vector quantities of both systems, from this you get that ##\vec{V}^{(j)} \cdot \vec{W}^{(k)}## as scalars commute with all components of ##\vec{J}##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
46
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K