Undergrad 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.
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
833
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
598
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K