I How do canonical transformations relate to Hamiltonians?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter dyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformations
AI Thread Summary
Canonical transformations relate Hamiltonians through a numerical equivalence rather than identical functional forms. The Hamiltonian for a harmonic oscillator, H(p, q), and the transformed Hamiltonian K(P, Q) can yield the same numerical results when evaluated at corresponding values, despite their different expressions. The distinction arises from the use of different coordinate systems, such as Cartesian versus polar coordinates. K and H being equal in value does not imply they share the same functional form, which only occurs under specific symmetries. Understanding this relationship is crucial for grasping the broader concept of canonical transformations in Hamiltonian mechanics.
dyn
Messages
774
Reaction score
63
Hi
The Hamiltonian for a harmonic oscillator is H = 1/(2m) ( p2+m2ω2q2). A canonical transformation is then made to a new Hamiltonian K( P , Q )

It is said that K ( P , Q ) = H ( p , q ) but K ( P , Q ) = ωP ( cos2Q +sin2Q ) = ωP

I don't understand how K ( P , Q ) = H ( p , q ) when they have different forms ? I thought if K = H then they must have the same form but H is a sum of 2 squares but K just equals ωP

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dyn said:
I don't understand how K ( P , Q ) = H ( p , q ) when they have different forms ?
They have different forms for different parameters, i.e. (P,Q) and (p,q). One uses Cartesian coordinates. Another uses polar coordinates.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I think i might be getting confused with symmetries , so let me see if i have got this right.

K ( P , Q ) = H ( p , q ) means that if i evaluate H at a certain value of p and q and then evaluate K at the transformed values of P and Q i get the same numerical answer ? There is no implication that K and H have the same functional form ?

If K and H had the exact same functional form then i could write H ( P , Q ) = H ( p , q ) and this occurs when the canonical transformation is a symmetry ?

Is that right ? Thanks
 
K and H does not have the same function form. Q does not appear in Hamiltonian K, which is called cyclic coordinate. Hamilton equation of motion for conjugate momentum is
\dot{P}=0
The generating function of transformation is
\displaystyle W_{1}(q,Q)={\frac {1}{2}}m\omega q^{2}\operatorname {cot} {Q}
 
Last edited:
dyn said:
Thank you. I think i might be getting confused with symmetries , so let me see if i have got this right.

K ( P , Q ) = H ( p , q ) means that if i evaluate H at a certain value of p and q and then evaluate K at the transformed values of P and Q i get the same numerical answer ? There is no implication that K and H have the same functional form ?

If K and H had the exact same functional form then i could write H ( P , Q ) = H ( p , q ) and this occurs when the canonical transformation is a symmetry ?

Is that right ? Thanks
This post is a general question. It is not specific to the harmonic oscillator. I am just trying to find out if i understand the concept in general terms ?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top