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

AI Thread 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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top