A Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics as symplectic manifold

Click For Summary
In the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, the phase space is identified as a symplectic manifold characterized by a closed non-degenerate 2-form, denoted as ##\omega##. The discussion clarifies that the non-degeneracy of ##\omega## implies it can be expressed locally as a linear combination of wedge products of covector bases, leading to local canonical coordinates. The non-degenerate condition is equivalent to the determinant of the associated matrix ##a_{ij}## being non-zero. Additionally, it is confirmed that this matrix is skew-symmetric due to the properties of the symplectic structure. Understanding these properties is crucial for grasping the implications of Darboux's theorem in the context of symplectic geometry.
cianfa72
Messages
2,879
Reaction score
302
TL;DR
About the definition of symplectic manifold structure employed in the hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics
Hi, in the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, the phase space is a symplectic manifold. Namely there is a closed non-degenerate 2-form ##\omega## that assign a symplectic structure to the ##2m## even dimensional manifold (the phase space).

As explained here Darboux's theorem since ##\omega## is by definition closed from Poincare lemma there exist locally a 1-form ##\theta## such that locally ##\omega = d\theta##.

However I've not a clear understanding why such ##d\theta## fulfills the Darboux's theorem hypothesis hence there are local canonical coordinates such that ##\omega## can be written as
$$\omega = dq_i \wedge dp_i$$
If ##\omega## was a rank ##m## form then by definition ##(d\theta)^m \neq 0## and of course ##\theta \wedge (d\theta)^m = 0## since it would be a ##2m+1## form defined on a 2m-dimensional manifold.

So the question is: why ##\omega## is assumed to be a 2-form with constant rank ##m## ? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
cianfa72 said:
So the question is: why ##\omega## is assumed to be a 2-form with constant rank ##m## ? Thanks.
It is not assumed, it follows from the fact that it is non-degenerate. Write it locally as ##\omega=\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}\theta^i\wedge\theta^j##, then ##\wedge^m \omega = det(a_{ij})\theta^1\wedge\cdots\wedge\theta^{2m}## is non-zero exactly when ##det(a_{ij})## is non-zero exactly when ##\omega## is non-degenerate.
 
martinbn said:
Write it locally as ##\omega=\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}\theta^i\wedge\theta^j##
Ah ok, so every 2-form can be always written as linear combination of wedge products of covector (1-form) basis of the dual space at each point on the manifold.

Then the definition of non-degenerate is equivalent (iff condition) to ##det(a_{ij}) \neq 0##.
 
cianfa72 said:
Ah ok, so every 2-form can be always written as linear combination of wedge products of covector (1-form) basis of the dual space at each point on the manifold.

Then the definition of non-degenerate is equivalent (iff condition) to ##det(a_{ij}) \neq 0##.
Yes, if the ##\theta^i## form a basis of 1-forms, then the ##\theta^i\wedge\theta^j## form a basis of 2-forms.
 
martinbn said:
Write it locally as ##\omega=\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}\theta^i\wedge\theta^j##, then ##\wedge^m \omega = det(a_{ij})\theta^1\wedge\cdots\wedge\theta^{2m}## is non-zero exactly when ##det(a_{ij})## is non-zero exactly when ##\omega## is non-degenerate.
Sorry to resume this old thread, in the definition of the 2-form ##\omega##, is the matrix ##a_{ij}## (with even dimension) assumed to be skew-symmetric (with even dimension)? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Yes.
 
Thread 'Why higher speeds need more power if backward force is the same?'
Power = Force v Speed Power of my horse = 104kgx9.81m/s^2 x 0.732m/s = 1HP =746W Force/tension in rope stay the same if horse run at 0.73m/s or at 15m/s, so why then horse need to be more powerfull to pull at higher speed even if backward force at him(rope tension) stay the same? I understand that if I increase weight, it is hrader for horse to pull at higher speed because now is backward force increased, but don't understand why is harder to pull at higher speed if weight(backward force)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K