Hamiltonian formulation and the Kepler problem

gammon54
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This isn't exactly homework, but something which you'd get as an assignment, so I'll still post it here in order to reach the right people..

I'm attempting to freshen up my knowledge on Hamiltonian systems, so I've tried to formulate the Kepler problem in Hamiltonian dynamics. I[/PLAIN] got results similar to the one from this thread:

In polar coordinates (##\varphi##, r), the Lagrangian is ##L = \frac12 m(r^2\dot \varphi^2 + \dot r^2) + \frac{\mu}r##, where μ is the standard gravitational parameter, and m the mass of the object in orbit. The generalized momenta are ##p_\phi = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot \varphi} = mr^2 \dot \varphi## and ##p_r = m\dot r##. The associated Hamiltonian reads

##H = \frac12 \frac{p_\phi^2}{m r^2} + \frac12 \frac{p_r^2}{m} - \frac{\mu}r##

The equations of motion should hence be

##\frac{dr}{dt} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_r} = \frac{p_r}m##
##\frac{d\varphi}{dt} = \frac{p_\phi}{m r^2}##
##\frac{dp_r}{dt} = -\frac{\partial H}{\partial r} = \frac{p_\phi^2}{m r^3} - \frac{\mu}{r^2}##
##p_\phi = const##

At this point I thought I'd validate this by calculating the orbit of the ISS around earth. It's nearly circular, so I should be able to set ##\dot p_r = 0## and then check that the resulting equation

##\frac{p_\phi^2}{m r^3} - \frac{\mu}{r^2}##

holds for the orbit parameters (which are available e.g. from Wolfram Alpha). Problem is: The result is off by a factor of the mass ##m##. This can be seen from the formula as well: I arrive at the expression

##m \dot \varphi^2 r^3 = \mu##

for the orbit parameters, whereas according to Wikipedia on "Circular orbit", ##\dot \varphi^2 r^3 = \mu## would be correct.

I am hence assuming that I made a mistake with the mass somewhere in the derivation, but I can't find it. I'd appreciate a hint! :-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Shouldn't your Lagrangian be L = \frac12 m(r^2\dot \varphi^2 + \dot r^2) + \frac{\mu m}r ?
 
  • Like
Likes gammon54
Right, thanks.. I was too worried about the details and forgot to double check the potential I guess.

##\int \frac{GMm}{r^2} dr = -\frac{GMm}{r} = -\frac{\mu m}{r}##

of course. Thanks a lot, now everything works out :-)
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top