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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the number of functionally independent constants of motion for a given Hamiltonian, specifically one defined by H(q_1,p_1,q_2,p_2) = q_1p_1 - q_2p_2 - aq_1^2 + bq_2^2. Participants explore whether there is a theorem limiting the number of such constants, noting that the Hamiltonian's four variables suggest a maximum of four functionally independent constants. They clarify the definition of functional independence and discuss the implications of combining constants of motion. Ultimately, it is concluded that there can be at most 2n functionally independent constants for a Hamiltonian with 2n degrees of freedom. This understanding is crucial for integrating Hamiltonian systems effectively.
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 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.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top