Hamiltonian mechanics: ∂H/∂t = ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of mechanics, specifically focusing on the partial derivative of the Hamiltonian with respect to time, expressed as ∂H/∂t = -∂L/∂t. Participants explore the implications of this equation, the assumptions involved, and the definitions of generalized coordinates and momenta.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the equation ∂H/∂t = -∂L/∂t assumes generalized coordinates are independent of time, while others argue that this is not a requirement for the derivation.
  • One participant points out that the expression for H involves terms that may depend on time, suggesting that the condition for ∂H/∂t = -∂L/∂t may not hold universally.
  • Another participant expresses confusion regarding the validity of the equation ∂∑p_i̇q_i/∂t = 0 and seeks clarification on the meaning of q_i and p_i, questioning whether they represent states of particles.
  • There is a request for clarification on the definitions of q and p, with a participant acknowledging their lack of understanding despite studying the formulations.
  • One participant attempts to explain the derivation of the total differential of H and its implications for the relationship between H and L, emphasizing that the dependence on time does not invalidate the equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions underlying the relationship between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations. There is no consensus on whether the generalized coordinates must be independent of time, and confusion remains regarding the definitions and implications of the variables involved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the concepts, particularly regarding the definitions of generalized coordinates and momenta, which may affect their interpretations of the equations discussed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and practitioners of physics, particularly those exploring Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics and seeking clarification on the foundational concepts involved.

Physics news on Phys.org
The derivation that you referenced does not in fact require that the gen. coord's be independent of time.
 
But ##H = \sum_i (p_i \dot{q_i}) - L##, so when you take the time-partial derivative ,##\frac{\partial{H}}{\partial{t}} = - \frac{\partial{L}}{\partial{t}}## can only be true if the ##(p_i \dot{q_i})##s are not functions of time. So at least the product of them must be time-independent.
 
Yes, the equation $$ {\partial H \over \partial t} = - {\partial L \over \partial t} $$ implies that $${\partial \sum p_i \dot q_i \over \partial t } = 0. $$ But the latter does not necessarily require that ##q_i## be independent of ##t##, if that is what you find problematic (it is unclear to me what your real difficulty is here).
 
I'm sorry, I am really confused about all of this at the moment.

What I mean to ask, is why $${\partial \sum p_i \dot q_i \over \partial t } = 0. $$ is true? My statistical physics book (which sucks) just took it for granted.

and could you please tell me what exactly the q's and p's represent? Are they some kind of states representing particles? So particle i is represented by the vector ##(q_i,p_i)## ?
 
Last edited:
Nikitin said:
I'm sorry, I am really confused about all of this at the moment.

What I mean to ask, is why $${\partial \sum p_i \dot q_i \over \partial t } = 0. $$ is true?

Let's take the starting equation you linked earlier: $$ \mathrm d H = \sum \left[ \left(\partial H \over \partial q_i \right) \mathrm d q_i + \left(\partial H \over \partial p_i \right) \mathrm d p_i \right]+ \left(\partial H \over \partial t \right) \mathrm d t .$$ This is the total differential of function ##H(q, p, t)## and this equation holds true regardless of what ##q## and ##p## are; in particular, they may also have dependence on ##t##. What happens then is re-derivation of this total differential by taking the definition of ##H## and using Leibniz's rule and the chain rule: $$ \mathrm d H = \sum \left[ \dot q_i \mathrm d p_i + p_i \mathrm d \dot q_i - \left(\partial L \over \partial q_i \right) \mathrm d q_i - \left(\partial L \over \partial \dot q_i \right) \mathrm d \dot q_i \right] - \left(\partial L \over \partial t \right) \mathrm d t .$$ This is again a total differential and is valid no matter what ##q ## and ##\dot q## we have. Then we note that by definition of ##p##, the second and fourth term in the square brackets cancel each other, leaving $$ \mathrm d H = \sum \left[ \dot q_i \mathrm d p_i - \left(\partial L \over \partial q_i \right) \mathrm d q_i \right] - \left(\partial L \over \partial t \right) \mathrm d t .$$ Now we compare eq. 1 and eq. 3 and obtain immediately $$ \left(\partial H \over \partial t \right) \mathrm d t = - \left(\partial L \over \partial t \right) \mathrm d t. $$

and could you please tell me what exactly the q's and p's represent? Are they some kind of starting coordinates describing the system at time=0?

Hmm. You are reading about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations and yet do not understand what ##q## and ##p## are?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you. Yes it's embarrassing, though I am just trying to get a superficial overview over for now.

But,, are the ##q_i##'s the coordinates for the particles in the system, and ##p_i##'s their "generalized momentum" (can't say I full understand that term..)? So the ##(q,p)## vector, which contains all the ##q_i##'s and ##p_i##'s defines the state of the system, right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K