Hamiltonian for a charged particle in a magnetic field

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the Hamiltonian for a charged particle in a magnetic field, specifically excluding the electric field. The Hamiltonian is expressed in terms of canonical momentum and the vector potential, leading to Hamilton's equations of motion. Participants confirm the correctness of the derivations, noting that the equations reflect a relationship similar to Newton's laws. The conversation also touches on the transition from Hamiltonian to Lagrangian mechanics, emphasizing the equivalence of these formulations in classical mechanics. Ultimately, the discussion illustrates the interplay between different mechanics frameworks when analyzing charged particle dynamics in electromagnetic fields.
zhangnous
Messages
2
Reaction score
5
I find a exercise in Leonard Susskind's book Classical Mechanics
截屏2021-05-04 下午6.44.43.png

the Hamiltonian of a charged particle in a magnetic field(ignore the electric field) is $$H=\sum_{i} \left\{ \frac{1}{2m} \left[ p_{i}-\frac{e}{c}A_{i}(x) \right]\left[ p_{i}-\frac{e}{c}A_{i}(x) \right] \right\},$$and$$p_{i}=m\dot x_{i}+\frac{e}{c}A_{i}(x)$$and Hamilton's equations of motion is $$\dot q_{i} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_{i}}$$$$\dot p_{i} = -\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_{i}}$$then I solve these equations in x. $$\dot x = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_{x}} = \frac{p_{x}-\frac{e}{c}A_{x}}{m}$$and$$\dot p_{x}=m\ddot x + \frac{e}{c}\left( \frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial x}\dot x+\frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial y}\dot y+\frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial z}\dot z \right)$$$$-\frac{\partial H}{\partial x}=-\left[ \frac{p_{x}-\frac{e}{c}A_{x}}{m}(-\frac{e}{c}\frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial x})+\frac{p_{y}-\frac{e}{c}A_{y}}{m}(-\frac{e}{c}\frac{\partial A_{y}}{\partial x})+\frac{p_{z}-\frac{e}{c}A_{z}}{m}(-\frac{e}{c}\frac{\partial A_{z}}{\partial x}) \right]=\frac{e}{c}\left( \frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial x}\dot x+\frac{\partial A_{y}}{\partial x}\dot y+\frac{\partial A_{z}}{\partial x}\dot z \right)$$then$$m\ddot x + \frac{e}{c}\left( \frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial x}\dot x+\frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial y}\dot y+\frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial z}\dot z \right)=\frac{e}{c}\left( \frac{\partial A_{x}}{\partial x}\dot x+\frac{\partial A_{y}}{\partial x}\dot y+\frac{\partial A_{z}}{\partial x}\dot z \right)$$and get $$ma_{x}=\frac{e}{c}(B_{z}\dot y-B_{y}\dot z)$$

Am I a right way to work it out? I am not sure if it is right, because it seems like a math structure game.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks absolutely fine! The first Hamilton equation gives ##\dot{x}_i = \frac{1}{m} \left( p_i - \frac{e}{c}A_i \right)## and the second Hamilton equation gives\begin{align*}\dot{p}_i = m\ddot{x}_i + \frac{e}{c} \sum_j \left[ \frac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j} \dot{x}_j \right] &=\frac{e}{mc} \sum_j \left[ \left( p_j - \frac{e}{c}A_j \right) \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_i} \right]\\

&= \frac{e}{c} \sum_j \left[ \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_i} \dot{x}_j \right]\end{align*}so you end up with\begin{align*}m\ddot{x}_i = \frac{e}{c} \sum_j \left[ \left( \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_i} - \frac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j} \right) \dot{x}_j \right] = \frac{e}{c} \sum_j \left[ F_{ij} \dot{x}_j \right] = \frac{e}{c} \left(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{H} \right)_i
\end{align*}Note that in this last equation the indices of the Maxwell tensor ##F_{ij}## run over the set ##\{ 1,2,3 \}##, so here we are only dealing with magnetic components. To obtain the entire Lorentz force, you need to modify the original Hamiltonian to include an additional term ##e\phi##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Twigg and zhangnous
etotheipi said:
Looks absolutely fine! The first Hamilton equation gives ##\dot{x}_i = \frac{1}{m} \left( p_i - \frac{e}{c}A_i \right)## and the second Hamilton equation gives\begin{align*}\dot{p}_i = m\ddot{x}_i + \frac{e}{c} \sum_j \left[ \frac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j} \dot{x}_j \right] &=\frac{e}{mc} \sum_j \left[ \left( p_j - \frac{e}{c}A_j \right) \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_i} \right]\\

&= \frac{e}{c} \sum_j \left[ \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial x_i} \dot{x}_j \right]\end{align*}
So the first Hamilton equation gives ##\dot{x}_i = \frac{1}{m} \left( p_i - \frac{e}{c}A_i \right)##, which is just the canonical momentum ##p_{i}=m\dot x_{i}+\frac{e}{c}A_{i}## in this special situation, and can also be used into the second Hamilton equation. It seems strange for me and looks like these two equation play with themselves.

But I remember the situation of one free particle. Hamiltonian is ##H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + V(x)##. First gives##\dot x = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p}=\frac{p}{m}## and ##\dot p = m\ddot x## then second gives ##\dot p = -\frac{\partial H}{\partial x}=-\frac{\partial V(x)}{\partial x}=F##. Finally have Newton's equation ##F=m\ddot x##. Which is also the two equation play with each other. This seems I just playing a joke with my own mind.

Thanks for you comprehensive explanation
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Twigg and etotheipi
Hamilton's equations should be equivalent to Newton's laws in these cases. You can derive Lagrange's equations either through variational principles or by d'Alembert's principle. With Einstein summation convention (all following formulae assume summation over repeated indices), the Lagrangian itself satisfies ##d\mathcal{L} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial q^i} dq^i + \frac{\partial \mathcal{}}{\partial \dot{q}^i} d\dot{q}^i = \dot{p}_i dq^i + p_i d\dot{q}^i##. You can do a Legendre transform ##\mathcal{H} := p_i \dot{q}^i - \mathcal{L}## from which it follows that ##d\mathcal{H} = -\dot{p}_i dq^i + \dot{q}^i dp_i## and by comparison to the expression for the total derivative of ##\mathcal{H}## you identify ##\dot{q}^i = \partial \mathcal{H} / \partial p_i## and ##\dot{p}_i = - \partial \mathcal{H} / \partial q^i##.

It all follows over to classical field theory, e.g. for a particle interacting with an electromagnetic field you have a Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L} = -mc^2 \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} + \frac{e}{c} A_i v^i - e\phi$$Defining ##P^i = mv^i/\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} + \frac{e}{c}A^i## one can check that this gives $$\mathcal{H} = e\phi + \sqrt{m^2c^4 + \left(P_i - \frac{e}{c} A_i \right) \left(P^i - \frac{e}{c} A^i \right) }$$which in the limit ##v/c \rightarrow 0## reduces to ##\mathcal{H} = e\phi + \frac{1}{2m} \left(P_i - \frac{e}{c} A_i \right) \left(P^i - \frac{e}{c} A^i \right)##, i.e. Susskind's expression just with the ##e\phi## term included. Also notice that ##\lim_{v/c \rightarrow 0} P^i = p^i = mv^i + \frac{e}{c}A^i##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71, zhangnous and Twigg
I was using the Smith chart to determine the input impedance of a transmission line that has a reflection from the load. One can do this if one knows the characteristic impedance Zo, the degree of mismatch of the load ZL and the length of the transmission line in wavelengths. However, my question is: Consider the input impedance of a wave which appears back at the source after reflection from the load and has traveled for some fraction of a wavelength. The impedance of this wave as it...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
128
Replies
10
Views
338
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K