How Does a Canonical Transformation Relate to Hamilton's Equations of Motion?

Logarythmic
Messages
277
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider a canonical transformation with generating function

F_2 (q,P) = qP + \epsilon G_2 (q,P),

where \epsilon is a small parameter.
Write down the explicit form of the transformation. Neglecting terms of order \epsilon^2 and higher,find a relation between this transformation and Hamilton's equations of motion, by setting G_2=H (why is this allowed?) and \epsilon = dt.2. The attempt at a solution

I think the transformation equations are

\delta p = P - p = -\epsilon \frac{\partial G_2}{\partial q}

and

\delta q =Q-q=\epsilon \frac{\partial G_2}{\partial q}
vanesch said:
I guess there's a typo here:
\delta q =Q-q=\epsilon \frac{\partial G_2}{\partial P}

but how can I solve the last part? Can I just say that with the use of H and dt the equations can be written as

\dot{p}=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial q}

and

\dot{q}=\frac{\partial H}{\partial P}

which are the Hamiltonian equations of motion? And why is this allowed?

vanesch said:
The idea is that we work in first order in \epsilon, and that you can hence replace everywhere P by p as the difference will introduce only second-order errrors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ooops ! :redface: :redface:

I'm terribly sorry, instead of replying, I erroneously edited your post ! :bugeye:
 
Yes it should be a P, not a q. I get the relations

Q = q + \delta q

and

P = p + \delta p

but why is it allowed to use G = H?
 
Logarythmic said:
Yes it should be a P, not a q. I get the relations

Q = q + \delta q

and

P = p + \delta p

but why is it allowed to use G = H?

You have the choice ! Every function G(q,P) (which is smooth enough) will generate a canonical transformation. So you may just as well use H(q,P), and then - that's the whole point - the transformation equations from (q,p) into (Q,P) give you simply the genuine time evolution where epsilon is the small time step. For an arbitrary G that isn't the case of course, you've just transformed your coordinates (q,p) in some other (Q,P). But for G = H, you've transformed the coordinates (q,p) in what they will be, a small moment later !
The reason for that is that your transformation equations you've found for an arbitrary G are what they are, and become the Hamilton equations of motion when you pick G to be equal to H.

Now, strictly speaking we should write H(q,P) instead of H(q,p), but we can replace the P by p here, because they are only a small amount different.
 
and it also preserve the fundamental poisson brackets...

its just a quick calcolus {Q,P}
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top