How many constants-of-motion for a given Hamiltonian?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Undoubtedly0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dynamics Hamiltonian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the number of constants-of-motion associated with a specific Hamiltonian, as presented in Jose & Saletan's "Classical Dynamics". Participants explore the definitions and implications of functional independence among these constants, as well as theorems related to the maximum number of such constants for a given Hamiltonian system.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant identifies a Hamiltonian with four variables and claims to have found four functionally independent constants of motion, questioning if there is a theorem that limits the number of such constants to four.
  • Another participant challenges the clarity of the definition of functional independence, suggesting that combinations of constants of motion may not be functionally independent.
  • A further reply discusses the necessity of independent first integrals for integrating a system and provides a condition under which certain functions are first integrals in Hamiltonian systems.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the clarification provided and notes a maximum of 2n functionally independent constants-of-motion for a Hamiltonian with 2n degrees of freedom.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition of functional independence and its implications for constants of motion. There is no consensus on a specific theorem regarding the maximum number of functionally independent constants of motion, and the discussion remains unresolved on this point.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of functional independence and the conditions under which constants of motion can be combined. The implications of Hamiltonian structure on the independence of constants are also noted but not fully resolved.

Undoubtedly0
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
I am using Jose & Saletan's "Classical Dynamics", where they introduce a rather contrived Hamiltonian in the problem set: H(q_1,p_1,q_2,p_2) = q_1p_1-q_2p_2 - aq_1^2 + bq_2^2 where a and b are constants. This Hamiltonian has several constants-of-motion, including f = q1q2, as can be easily checked. In fact, at this point I am aware of four "functionally independent" constants of motion.

Since this Hamiltonian is a function of four variables, is there some theorem that says there are at most four functionally independent constants of motion? If not, then how would I know when I have found enough to form a basis?

----

Note: The authors define functions f and g to be functionally independent if both functions can be written as functions of a third function. It would seem that this is a relatively obscure topic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That definition of functionally independent isn't clear enough.
If ##E## and ##L## are constants of motion, then ##E^L## and ##2E-L## and any other combinations are also constants of motion.
If ##K## is a constant of motion, then so is ##E+K##. But is ##E+K## functionally independent with ##E^L##?
 
Khashishi said:
That definition of functionally independent isn't clear enough.
If ##E## and ##L## are constants of motion, then ##E^L## and ##2E-L## and any other combinations are also constants of motion.
If ##K## is a constant of motion, then so is ##E+K##. But is ##E+K## functionally independent with ##E^L##?
Thanks Khashishi. I have assumed that functional independence extends to more than two functions in the analogous way that linear independence does. That is, if ##E## and ##L## are constants of the motion, ##\{E,L,E^L\}## is not a functionally independent set.

Said differently, what is the least number of constants-of-motion that can be combined to form all other constants of motion? In my case, is this four? Is there a general theorem?
 
Generally to integrate a system ##\dot x=v(x),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^m## you need m-1 independent first integrals ##f_k(x),\quad k=1,\ldots,m-1##. And this is the maximal system: any other first integral depends on ##f_k(x),\quad k=1,\ldots,m-1##.
There is a useful fact about the Hamiltonian systems. If the Hamiltonian has the form ##H=H(f(p_1,\ldots,p_s,q_1,\ldots,q_s),p_{s+1},\ldots,p_m,q_{s+1},\ldots,q_m)## then ##f## is a first integral. So in your case the functions ##q_1p_1-aq_1^2,\quad -q_2p_2+bq_2^2## are the first integrals and the Hamiltonian depends on these functions. Due to the specific of Hamiltonian systems, It is sufficient to integrate this system explicitly. For details see https://loshijosdelagrange.files.wo...tical-methods-of-classical-mechanics-1989.pdf

The set of functions ##f_j(x)## is called independent in a domain ##D## if the vectors ##\nabla f_j## are linearly independent at each point ##x\in D##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Undoubtedly0
Thank you, wrobel. This was exactly what I was looking for. I have found it simple to show that there are at most ##2n## functionally independent constants-of-motion for a Hamiltonian of ##2n## freedoms.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K