Hamiltonian formulation of *classical* field theory

In summary: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1994.In summary, the author is looking for a book that would explain classical field theory in a Hamiltonian setting. He is averse to obtaining it via the Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian because of "intellectual elegance". He recommends looking at chapter 7 of vol.1 of Weinberg's Quantum theory of fields.
  • #1
DrFaustus
90
0
Hi,

I was looking for a book that would explain classical field theory in a Hamiltonian setting. What I mean by this is that there be no *actions* around, no *Lagrangians* and *Legendre transforms* to define the Hamiltonian and so on. What I'm looking fo is an exposition of (classical) field theory that starts with the Hamiltonian and the Poisson bracket, from which one can obviously derive the equations of motion and everything else. In this setting I can then *quantize* the theory in the usual way. And if the exposition is mathematically (semi-)rigorous, even better!

Can anyone suggest a reference? Review paper, book or similar?

(Mods, sorry if the post is not in the appropriate forum. It seemed the most appropriate to me as I'm interested in the quantization of the theory.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I know Goldstein has a section on classical field theory, but I don't know whether or not it develops it in the way you suggest; I'd guess not however.

Can I ask why you're so averse to obtaining it via the Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian?
 
  • #3
muppet -> Because of "intellectual elegance". I need to write up something about canonical (Hamiltonian) quantization and it's conceptually much more elegant if I could avoid talking about Lagrangians and actions. Much like in ordinary QM where the Lagrangian doesn't enter till you want to talk about path integrals. Not to mention that the Legendre transform is not really well defined if the Lagrangian contains interaction terms with derivatives. I could put what I know together and a physicists would be happy about it, but mathematical rigour is a bit of an issue, so I wanted some reference on the subject. Thanks for the suggetions tho', I'll check it out.
 
  • #4
I see. The trouble is that it's defined as the Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian. In the setting of classical mechanics, the Legendre transformation only works out to be
[tex]T-V \rightarrow T+V[/tex]
when the kinetic energy is a quadratic form in the velocity. If the hamiltonian were defined as the energy operator, then the Schroedinger equation [tex]H\Psi=E\Psi[/tex] would be trivial; it's because the energy operator can be defined as the generator of infinitesmal time translations, and the hamiltonian as the legendre transformation of the lagrangian, that it isn't.

Also, if you want to be careful about how you do things, I'd suggest having a look at chapter 7 of vol.1 of Weinberg's Quantum theory of fields; he's careful to emphasise some subtleties a lot of authors suppress for expedience.
 
  • #5
[1] I.V. Kanatchikov: On Field Theoretic Generalizations of a Poisson Algebra,
Rep. Math. Phys. 40 (1997) 225-234, hep-th/9710069.
[2] I.V. Kanatchikov: Canonical Structure of Classical Field Theory in the Polymomentum
Phase Space, Rep. Math. Phys. 41 (1998) 49-90, hep-th/9709229.
[3] J.F. Cari˜nena, M. Crampin & L.A. Ibort: On the Multisymplectic Formalism
for First Order Field Theories, Diff. Geom. Appl. 1 (1991) 345-374.
[4] M.J. Gotay, J. Isenberg & J.E. Marsden: Momentum Maps and Classical
Relativistic Fields I: Covariant Field Theory, physics/9801019.
[5] M. Forger & H. R¨omer: A Poisson Bracket on Multisymplectic Phase Space,
Rep. Math. Phys. 48 (2001) 211-218; math-ph/0009037.
[6] H. Goldschmidt & S. Sternberg: The Hamilton-Cartan Formalism in the
Calculus of Variations, Ann. Inst. Four. 23 (1973) 203-267.
[7] V. Guillemin & S. Sternberg: Geometric Asymptotics, Mathematical Surveys,
Vol. 14, American Mathematical Society, Providence 1977.
[8] J. Kijowski: A Finite-dimensional Canonical Formalism in the Classical Field
Theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 30 (1973) 99-128; Multiphase Spaces and Gauge
in Calculus of Variations, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci. SMAP 22 (1974) 1219-1225.
[9] J. Kijowski & W. Szczyrba: Multisymplectic Manifolds and the Geometrical
Construction of the Poisson Brackets in the Classical Field Theory, in: “G´eometrie
Symplectique et Physique Math´ematique”, pp. 347-379, ed.: J.-M. Souriau,
C.N.R.S., Paris 1975.
[10] J. Kijowski & W. Szczyrba: Canonical Structure for Classical Field Theories,
Commun. Math. Phys. 46 (1976) 183-206.
[11] J. Kijowski & W. Tulczyjew: A Symplectic Framework for Field Theories,
Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 107, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1979.
[12] M. Forger, C. Paufler & H. R¨omer: More about Poisson Brackets and
Poisson Forms in Multisymplectic Field Theory.
[13] C. Crnkovi´c & E. Witten: Covariant Description of Canonical Formalism
in Geometrical Theories, in: “Three Hundred Years of Gravitation”, pp. 676-684,
eds: W. Israel & S. Hawking, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987.
[14] C. Crnkovi´c: Symplectic Geometry of Covariant Phase Space, Class. Quant.
Grav. 5 (1988) 1557-1575.
[15] G. Zuckerman: Action Principles and Global Geometry, in: “Mathematical Aspects
of String Theory”, pp. 259-288, ed.: S.-T. Yau, World Scientific, Singapore
1987.
[16] R.E. Peierls: The Commutation Laws of Relativistic Field Theory, Proc. Roy.
Soc. Lond. A 214 (1952) 143-157.
[17] B. de Witt: Dynamical Theory of Groups and Fields, in: “Relativity, Groups
and Topology, 1963 Les Houches Lectures”, pp. 585-820, eds: B. de Witt & C. de
Witt, Gordon and Breach, New York 1964.
[18] B. de Witt: The Spacetime Approach to Quantum Field Theory, in: “Relativity,
Groups and Topology II, 1983 Les Houches Lectures”, pp. 382-738, eds.: B. de
Witt & R. Stora, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1984.
[19] S.V. Romero: Colchete de Poisson Covariante na Teoria Geom´etrica dos Campos,
PhD thesis, Institute for Mathematics and Statistics, University of S˜ao Paulo,
June 2001.
[20] M. Forger & S.V. Romero: Covariant Poisson Brackets in Geometric Field
Theory.
[21] R. Abraham & J.E. Marsden: Foundations of Mechanics, 2nd edition, Benjamin/
Cummings, Reading 1978.
[22] V. Arnold: Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, 2nd edition, Springer,
Berlin 1989.
[23] H.A. Kastrup: Canonical Theories of Lagrangian Dynamical Systems in Physics
Phys. Rep. 101 (1983) 3-167.
[24] G. Martin: A Darboux Theorem for Multisymplectic Manifolds, Lett. Math.
Phys. 16 (1988) 133-138.
[25] G. Martin: Dynamical Structures for k-Vector Fields, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 41
(1988) 571-585.
[26] F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort & M. de Le´on: On the Geometry of Multisymplectic
Manifolds, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 66 (1999) 303-330.
[27] C. Paufler & H. R¨omer: Geometry of Hamiltonian n-Vector Fields in Multisymplectic
Field Theory, math-ph/0102008, to appear in J. Geom. Phys.
[28] C. Paufler: A Vertical Exterior Derivative in Multisymplectic Geometry and a
Graded Poisson Bracket for Nontrivial Geometries, Rep. Math. Phys. 47 (2001)
101-119; math-ph/0002032.
[29] L. Faddeev, in Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians, Vol 1, P513-550. American Mathematical Society.


regards

sam
 
Last edited:
  • #6
samalkhaiat said:
[1] I.V. Kanatchikov: On Field Theoretic Generalizations of a Poisson Algebra,
Rep. Math. Phys. 40 (1997) 225-234, hep-th/9710069.
[2] I.V. Kanatchikov: Canonical Structure of Classical Field Theory in the Polymomentum
Phase Space, Rep. Math. Phys. 41 (1998) 49-90, hep-th/9709229.
[3] J.F. Cari˜nena, M. Crampin & L.A. Ibort: On the Multisymplectic Formalism
for First Order Field Theories, Diff. Geom. Appl. 1 (1991) 345-374.
[4] M.J. Gotay, J. Isenberg & J.E. Marsden: Momentum Maps and Classical
Relativistic Fields I: Covariant Field Theory, physics/9801019.
[5] M. Forger & H. R¨omer: A Poisson Bracket on Multisymplectic Phase Space,
Rep. Math. Phys. 48 (2001) 211-218; math-ph/0009037.
[6] H. Goldschmidt & S. Sternberg: The Hamilton-Cartan Formalism in the
Calculus of Variations, Ann. Inst. Four. 23 (1973) 203-267.
[7] V. Guillemin & S. Sternberg: Geometric Asymptotics, Mathematical Surveys,
Vol. 14, American Mathematical Society, Providence 1977.
[8] J. Kijowski: A Finite-dimensional Canonical Formalism in the Classical Field
Theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 30 (1973) 99-128; Multiphase Spaces and Gauge
in Calculus of Variations, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci. SMAP 22 (1974) 1219-1225.
[9] J. Kijowski & W. Szczyrba: Multisymplectic Manifolds and the Geometrical
Construction of the Poisson Brackets in the Classical Field Theory, in: “G´eometrie
Symplectique et Physique Math´ematique”, pp. 347-379, ed.: J.-M. Souriau,
C.N.R.S., Paris 1975.
[10] J. Kijowski & W. Szczyrba: Canonical Structure for Classical Field Theories,
Commun. Math. Phys. 46 (1976) 183-206.
[11] J. Kijowski & W. Tulczyjew: A Symplectic Framework for Field Theories,
Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 107, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1979.
[12] M. Forger, C. Paufler & H. R¨omer: More about Poisson Brackets and
Poisson Forms in Multisymplectic Field Theory.
[13] C. Crnkovi´c & E. Witten: Covariant Description of Canonical Formalism
in Geometrical Theories, in: “Three Hundred Years of Gravitation”, pp. 676-684,
eds: W. Israel & S. Hawking, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987.
[14] C. Crnkovi´c: Symplectic Geometry of Covariant Phase Space, Class. Quant.
Grav. 5 (1988) 1557-1575.
[15] G. Zuckerman: Action Principles and Global Geometry, in: “Mathematical Aspects
of String Theory”, pp. 259-288, ed.: S.-T. Yau, World Scientific, Singapore
1987.
[16] R.E. Peierls: The Commutation Laws of Relativistic Field Theory, Proc. Roy.
Soc. Lond. A 214 (1952) 143-157.
[17] B. de Witt: Dynamical Theory of Groups and Fields, in: “Relativity, Groups
and Topology, 1963 Les Houches Lectures”, pp. 585-820, eds: B. de Witt & C. de
Witt, Gordon and Breach, New York 1964.
[18] B. de Witt: The Spacetime Approach to Quantum Field Theory, in: “Relativity,
Groups and Topology II, 1983 Les Houches Lectures”, pp. 382-738, eds.: B. de
Witt & R. Stora, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1984.
[19] S.V. Romero: Colchete de Poisson Covariante na Teoria Geom´etrica dos Campos,
PhD thesis, Institute for Mathematics and Statistics, University of S˜ao Paulo,
June 2001.
[20] M. Forger & S.V. Romero: Covariant Poisson Brackets in Geometric Field
Theory.
[21] R. Abraham & J.E. Marsden: Foundations of Mechanics, 2nd edition, Benjamin/
Cummings, Reading 1978.
[22] V. Arnold: Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, 2nd edition, Springer,
Berlin 1989.
[23] H.A. Kastrup: Canonical Theories of Lagrangian Dynamical Systems in Physics
Phys. Rep. 101 (1983) 3-167.
[24] G. Martin: A Darboux Theorem for Multisymplectic Manifolds, Lett. Math.
Phys. 16 (1988) 133-138.
[25] G. Martin: Dynamical Structures for k-Vector Fields, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 41
(1988) 571-585.
[26] F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort & M. de Le´on: On the Geometry of Multisymplectic
Manifolds, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 66 (1999) 303-330.
[27] C. Paufler & H. R¨omer: Geometry of Hamiltonian n-Vector Fields in Multisymplectic
Field Theory, math-ph/0102008, to appear in J. Geom. Phys.
[28] C. Paufler: A Vertical Exterior Derivative in Multisymplectic Geometry and a
Graded Poisson Bracket for Nontrivial Geometries, Rep. Math. Phys. 47 (2001)
101-119; math-ph/0002032.
[29] L. Faddeev, in Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians, Vol 1, P513-550. American Mathematical Society.


regards

sam

Well, now I feel inadequate :tongue:
 
  • #7
samalkhaiat -> Wow, I'm aboslutely impressed. You've given me more references than I could hope for! Thanks A LOT!
 
  • #8
How about "https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387968903/?tag=pfamazon01-20", by V.I. Arnold? I haven't read it yet, but I'm planning to, and it seems to have what you need. (Of course I haven't actually read it, so it's quite possible that it only covers point particle theories and no field theories, or something like that, but you should at least check it out).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is the Hamiltonian formulation of classical field theory?

The Hamiltonian formulation is an alternative mathematical approach to describing the dynamics of classical fields. It is based on the Hamiltonian formalism, which uses the Hamiltonian function to express the equations of motion for a given field.

2. How does the Hamiltonian formulation differ from other formulations of classical field theory?

The Hamiltonian formulation differs from other formulations, such as the Lagrangian formulation, in that it focuses on the dynamics of the field at a specific point in time, rather than the entire history of the field. It also places a greater emphasis on the energy and momentum of the field.

3. What is the role of the Hamiltonian function in the Hamiltonian formulation?

The Hamiltonian function plays a central role in the Hamiltonian formulation, as it is used to derive the equations of motion for the field. It represents the total energy of the field and is a function of the field variables and their corresponding momenta.

4. Can the Hamiltonian formulation be applied to all types of classical fields?

Yes, the Hamiltonian formulation can be applied to any type of classical field, including scalar fields, vector fields, and tensor fields. It is a general approach that can be adapted to different types of fields.

5. Are there any limitations to the Hamiltonian formulation of classical field theory?

One limitation of the Hamiltonian formulation is that it does not take into account quantum effects. It is only applicable to classical fields and cannot be used to describe the behavior of quantum fields. Additionally, it may be more difficult to apply to fields with complicated boundary conditions or non-linear interactions.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
582
Replies
1
Views
858
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
933
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
0
Views
351
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
947
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top