Hamiltonian for a charged particle in a magnetic field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Hamiltonian formulation for a charged particle in a magnetic field, as presented in Leonard Susskind's Classical Mechanics. Participants explore the derivation of Hamilton's equations of motion, the implications of the Hamiltonian, and the relationship to classical mechanics, particularly Newton's laws and Lagrangian mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Hamiltonian for a charged particle in a magnetic field and derives the equations of motion, expressing uncertainty about the correctness of their approach.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of the derivation and elaborates on the second Hamilton equation, relating it to the Lorentz force and the Maxwell tensor.
  • A third participant echoes the confirmation and reflects on the interplay between the Hamilton equations and classical mechanics, drawing parallels to the case of a free particle.
  • A fourth participant discusses the equivalence of Hamilton's equations to Newton's laws and introduces concepts from Lagrangian mechanics, including a modified Hamiltonian that incorporates an electric potential term.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While some participants express agreement on the correctness of the derivations, there is no consensus on the implications of the Hamiltonian formulation or the necessity of including additional terms for a complete description of the system. The discussion remains open-ended with multiple perspectives on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the relationships between the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, and Newtonian frameworks, highlighting the need for careful consideration of terms and conditions in the equations. There is also mention of the dependence on the specific definitions and assumptions used in the derivations.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: vanhees71, zhangnous and Twigg

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
525
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
851
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
815
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
718
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
684