Hamiltonian mechanics: canonical transformations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around canonical transformations in Hamiltonian mechanics, specifically addressing the transformation of Hamiltonians and the conditions under which certain problems can be solved within this framework. Participants explore the relationship between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations, particularly focusing on the solvability of equations related to generalized velocities and momenta.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether it is necessary to express all velocities in terms of canonical coordinates before transforming the Hamiltonian, suggesting that both methods might be equivalent.
  • Another participant notes that Hamilton's equations are first-order differential equations, which are generally easier to solve than the second-order Lagrange equations, but the process to derive them can be more complex.
  • A participant raises the concern that some problems may not be solvable in Hamiltonian formulation if the relationship between momenta and velocities cannot be inverted.
  • In response, another participant argues that it is always possible to construct a coherent Hamiltonian formalism for any system with an arbitrary Lagrangian, although it may require special techniques.
  • Examples are mentioned, such as the Dirac field, which is solvable despite its Lagrangian not being quadratic in velocities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the solvability of certain problems in Hamiltonian mechanics, with some asserting that issues can arise while others maintain that a coherent formalism can always be constructed. No consensus is reached on the necessity of expressing velocities in terms of canonical coordinates before transformation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of transitioning between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations, particularly in cases where the relationship between momenta and velocities is not straightforward. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of specific Lagrangians and their invertibility.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Say I have a canonical transformation Q(q,p), P(q,p).

In the {q,p} canonical coordinates, the Hamiltonian is

[tex]H(q,p,t)=p\dot{q}-L(q,\dot{q},t)[/tex]

And the function [itex]K(Q,P,t)=H(q(Q,P),p(Q,P),t)[/itex] plays the role of hamiltonian for the canonical coordinates Q and P in the sense that

[tex]\dot{Q}=\frac{\partial K}{\partial P}, \ \ \ \ \ \ -\dot{P}=\frac{\partial K}{\partial Q}[/tex]

My question is this: must I first express all the [itex]\dot{q}[/itex] in there in terms of q and p before transforming my Hamiltonian into [itex]K(Q,P,t)=H(q(Q,P),p(Q,P),t)[/itex], or can I just compute [itex]\dot{q}(Q,\dot{Q},P,\dot{P})[/itex] and substitute?

A priori, I would say that it is certainly not necessary and that the two ways are equivalent [that is, in the event that it is even possible to invert [itex]p=\partial L /\partial \dot{q}[/itex] !], but I have evidence that it's not and that the second way leads to equations of motion that are wrong. :frown:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I suppose I found the answer to my question on wiki:

Hamilton's equations are first-order differential equations, and thus easier to solve than Lagrange's equations, which are second-order. However, the steps leading to the equations of motion are more onerous than in Lagrangian mechanics - beginning with the generalized coordinates and the Lagrangian, we must calculate the Hamiltonian, express each generalized velocity in terms of the conjugate momenta, and replace the generalized velocities in the Hamiltonian with the conjugate momenta.

But then, wouldn't this suggest that some problems simply are not solvable in hamiltonian formulation? Namely, those for which

[tex]p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}[/tex]

is not solvable for [itex]\dot{q}[/itex].
 
quasar987 said:
I

But then, wouldn't this suggest that some problems simply are not solvable in hamiltonian formulation? Namely, those for which

[tex]p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}[/tex]

is not solvable for [itex]\dot{q}[/itex].

Nice question! Now, in most cases, the lagrangian is quadratic in q-dot, so the equations you write down are linear equations.

I guess that very exotic lagrangians might give a headache in inverting this system, though.
 
quasar987 said:
I suppose I found the answer to my question on wiki:

Hamilton's equations are first-order differential equations, and thus easier to solve than Lagrange's equations, which are second-order. However, the steps leading to the equations of motion are more onerous than in Lagrangian mechanics - beginning with the generalized coordinates and the Lagrangian, we must calculate the Hamiltonian, express each generalized velocity in terms of the conjugate momenta, and replace the generalized velocities in the Hamiltonian with the conjugate momenta.

But then, wouldn't this suggest that some problems simply are not solvable in hamiltonian formulation? Namely, those for which

[tex]p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}[/tex]

is not solvable for [itex]\dot{q}[/itex].

They are solvable. It's always possible to construct a coherent Hamiltonian formalism for a system which has basically an arbitrary lagrangian. It just takes a special techinique.

For example the Dirac field is completely solvable, even though the lagrangian (density) is not quadratic in "velocities"...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K