I Continuity of Hamiltonian at separatrix in action-angle variables

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the continuity of the Hamiltonian at the separatrix within action-angle variables. It questions whether the Hamiltonian, defined as a piecewise function, is necessarily continuous at the separatrix where the type of motion can switch between oscillation and rotation. The author acknowledges confusion regarding the calculation of action variables at the separatrix and the implications for continuity. They conclude that while the transition between Hamiltonians for oscillation and rotation may not be continuous, this does not affect the partial derivatives of the Hamiltonian at a specific energy level. The need for a more concrete proof or resource to clarify these concepts is emphasized.
giraffe714
Messages
21
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Because the action variable is not necessarily the same between oscillatory and rotational motion, how can it be ensured that the Hamiltonian is differentiable, or at least continuous at the separatrix?
As said in the tl;dr: is the Hamiltonian necessarily differentiable (hence continuous) at the separatrix in the action-angle formalism? After all, the action variables are different depending on the type of motion. As far as I know the Hamiltonian H = H(J) can be found by inverting J for E, and the most obvious thing I could come up with (which may just be where I'm going wrong) is to define H as a piecewise function, with:

$$ H = \begin{cases} H(J_{osc}) & E < E_{osc} \\ H(J_{rot}) & E > E_{rot} \end{cases} $$

But (a), it isn't defined at the separatrix, mainly because I'm not entirely sure how I would go about calculating J at the separatrix as, from what I can understand, at that energy there's basically a 50/50 chance the next "cycle" will be rotation or oscillation (hence, what bounds should be used?) And (b), even if for example ## J_{sep} = J_{rot} ##, would the Hamiltonian then necessarily be continuous? Again, perhaps it's the way I'm thinking about the Hamiltonian as a piecewise function, perhaps there's a better way to combine the two. While my intuition for the fact that, yes, it should be continuous is there: for example, for p = p(x, E) the energy slowly climbs up in oscillations until in reaches the separatrix, at which there is a point where p = 0, and then that bottom-most part of the separatrix where p = 0 smoothes itself out and rises to become rotational motion. And of course this shouldn't change in the action-angle formalism because after all it's a canonical transformation. But despite having this intuition, I think it's important to have a proof for a more concrete understanding. Might be just missing something though, in which case do point that out. But if I'm not just making a mistake, please point me to a resource which explains this or maybe gives a proof sketch. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
So I went down a bit of a rabbit hole and turns out, from what I could gather:
a) The action variable behaves strangely at the separatrix.
b) The transition between ## H_{osc} ## and ## H_{rot} ## need not be continuous, which is okay because I completely misinterpreted what kind of continuity I was looking for - I thought the discontinuity between ## H_{osc} ## and ## H_{rot} ## was going to make the partial derivatives of H at a *set energy level* be ill-defined, which is not the case. Whoops.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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