Undergrad Cyclic variables for Hamiltonian

Click For Summary
The Hamiltonian for a single particle can be expressed in various forms, indicating its dependence on generalized coordinates and canonical momenta. The discussion highlights that while the current coordinates are not cyclic, alternative coordinates could be used where one might be cyclic, particularly in the context of a 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator. The Hamiltonian exhibits symmetries that may reveal dependencies on specific coordinates. Converting to polar coordinates is suggested as a potential method to simplify the analysis. Ultimately, the exploration of coordinate systems is crucial for understanding the system's dynamics and constants of motion.
digogalvao
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
A single particle Hamitonian ##H=\frac{m\dot{x}^{2}}{2}+\frac{m\dot{y}^{2}}{2}+\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{2}## can be expressed as: ##H=\frac{p_{x}^{2}}{2m}+\frac{p_{y}^{2}}{2m}+\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{2}## or even: ##H=\frac{p_{x}^{2}}{2m}+\frac{p_{y}^{2}}{2m}+\frac{\dot{p_{x}}^{2}+\dot{p_{x}}^{2}}{4}##. Does it mean that the system has no cyclic coordinates? Since all relevant coordinates appear explicitly in ##H##. In that case, there are no constants of motion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, the Hamiltonian is a function of the generalised coordinates and the corresponding canonical momenta (or more generally, of coordinates on phase space). You should not write the Hamiltonian as a function of derivatives of the momenta. Second, it is unclear to me what "it" that is supposed to mean that the system has no cyclic coordinates is. What property of the expression are you referring to? Clearly, none of the coordinates that you have are cyclic, but that does not mean that there are necessarily other coordinates you could use where one of them would be cyclic (as in fact there is in this case).
 
Orodruin said:
First of all, the Hamiltonian is a function of the generalised coordinates and the corresponding canonical momenta (or more generally, of coordinates on phase space). You should not write the Hamiltonian as a function of derivatives of the momenta. Second, it is unclear to me what "it" that is supposed to mean that the system has no cyclic coordinates is. What property of the expression are you referring to? Clearly, none of the coordinates that you have are cyclic, but that does not mean that there are necessarily other coordinates you could use where one of them would be cyclic (as in fact there is in this case).
What other coordinate is that?
 
digogalvao said:
What other coordinate is that?
What symmetries does the Hamiltonian have? In what coordinates would the Hamiltonian therefore not depend on one of the coordinates?
Hint: What you have is quite clearly a 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator.
 
Orodruin said:
What symmetries does the Hamiltonian have? In what coordinates would the Hamiltonian therefore not depend on one of the coordinates?
Hint: What you have is quite clearly a 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator.
Yes, the frequency is ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}##. Should I put everything in polar coordinates?
 
What happens if you do?
 
Thread 'What is the pressure of trapped air inside this tube?'
As you can see from the picture, i have an uneven U-shaped tube, sealed at the short end. I fill the tube with water and i seal it. So the short side is filled with water and the long side ends up containg water and trapped air. Now the tube is sealed on both sides and i turn it in such a way that the traped air moves at the short side. Are my claims about pressure in senarios A & B correct? What is the pressure for all points in senario C? (My question is basically coming from watching...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
639
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K