I How do I check if the canonical angular momentum is conserved?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of angular momentum in a system described by a magnetic Hamiltonian. Participants question the formulation of the Hamiltonian, noting that it should be a scalar rather than a vector. To determine if angular momentum is conserved, they suggest computing the Poisson bracket between the Hamiltonian and the angular momentum vector. There is also a clarification that the focus should be on the canonical angular momentum rather than the ordinary orbital angular momentum. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly defining the Hamiltonian to analyze the system's dynamics effectively.
phos19
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Specifically given a purely magnetic hamiltonian with some associated vector potential :
$$ H = \dfrac{1}{2m} (\vec{p} - q\vec{A}) $$

How can I deduce if $$ \vec{L} = \vec{r} \times \vec{p}$$ is conserved? ( $$\vec{p} = \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial x'}$$, i.e. the momentum is canonical)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
phos19 said:
$$ H = \dfrac{1}{2m} (\vec{p} - q\vec{A}) $$
Are you sure this is the correct Hamiltonian? Normally ##H## is a scalar here, but your RHS is a vector.
phos19 said:
How can I deduce if ## \vec{L} = \vec{r} \times \vec{p}\,## is conserved?
When you've figured out a correct Hamiltonian, you could try computing the Poisson bracket between ##H## and ##\vec{L}## ?

Btw, maybe you really want the proper canonical angular momentum ##\partial {\mathcal L}/\partial\dot\phi##, rather the ordinary orbital angular momentum?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark and malawi_glenn
The ## (\vec p - q \vec A)## should be squared
 
  • Like
Likes phos19 and topsquark
malawi_glenn said:
The ## (\vec p - q \vec A)## should be squared
yes, my mistake
 
strangerep said:
Are you sure this is the correct Hamiltonian? Normally ##H## is a scalar here, but your RHS is a vector.

When you've figured out a correct Hamiltonian, you could try computing the Poisson bracket between ##H## and ##\vec{L}## ?

Btw, maybe you really want the proper canonical angular momentum ##\partial {\mathcal L}/\partial\dot\phi##, rather the ordinary orbital angular momentum?

strangerep said:
Are you sure this is the correct Hamiltonian? Normally ##H## is a scalar here, but your RHS is a vector.

When you've figured out a correct Hamiltonian, you could try computing the Poisson bracket between ##H## and ##\vec{L}## ?

Btw, maybe you really want the proper canonical angular momentum ##\partial {\mathcal L}/\partial\dot\phi##, rather the ordinary orbital angular momentum?
yes ##H## is supposed to be squared. Here ##\vec{L}## is the canonical angular momentum, not the "naive" angular momentum.
 
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 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K