Hamiltonian does NOT equal energy?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nonequilibrium
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Hamiltonian
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the relationship between Hamiltonian mechanics and energy in systems with non-holonomic constraints. Specifically, it confirms that in a system where a ring can move along a rotating rod, the binding forces are rheonomic, which leads to the conclusion that the Hamiltonian (H) does not equal the total energy (E). This is established through the Lagrangian formalism, emphasizing the distinction between holonomic and non-holonomic constraints in classical mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Knowledge of holonomic and non-holonomic constraints
  • Basic concepts of rheonomic forces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of rheonomic constraints in classical mechanics
  • Explore examples of non-holonomic systems in physics
  • Learn about the differences between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations
  • Investigate the role of constraint forces in mechanical systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on classical mechanics, as well as researchers interested in the nuances of Hamiltonian and Lagrangian dynamics.

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello,

Just to be sure: is the following correct?

Imagine a long rod rotating at a constant angular speed (driven by a little motor). Now say there's a small ring on the rod that can move on the rod without friction. The ring is then held onto the rod by an ideal binding force (I don't know the correct term in English, a force that doesn't deliver virtual work). This ring, free to move along the rod, can be described using the Lagrangian formalism.

Now is it true that the binding forces are non-holonomic? And this is the reason why [tex]H \neq E[/tex]? It seems like it anyway, but I remember reading a thread on here a while ago looking for simple systems for which [tex]H \neq E[/tex] while all examples given were very mathematical and far-fetched in a physical sense, so this makes me a bit unsure about what I've written above, hence the double-check.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oops, important EDIT:

"Now is it true that the binding forces are non-holonomic?"

I meant non-SCLERONOMIC, i.e. rheonomic.
 
mr. vodka said:
Hello,

Just to be sure: is the following correct?

Now is it true that the binding forces are non-holonomic? And this is the reason why [tex]H \neq E[/tex]?

Yes,the constraint forces are rheonomic and this is whry [itex]H\neq E=T+V[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K