Lagrangian with generalized positions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of the Lagrangian in terms of generalized coordinates and velocities, specifically exploring cases where time is not explicitly present in the Lagrangian, yet velocities appear outside the kinetic term. Participants are investigating the implications for the Hamiltonian and its relationship to the total energy of a system, particularly in the context of electromagnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a toy model where the Lagrangian depends on transformed variables with velocities appearing outside the kinetic term and time not being explicit.
  • Another participant provides a standard example of a Lagrangian for a particle in an external potential, noting that time is typically not explicit in such cases.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of velocity dependence in potential energy terms in standard examples.
  • Discussion includes a specific Lagrangian for motion in an electromagnetic field, where velocities appear in the interaction term.
  • Participants explore the relationship between the Hamiltonian and total energy, questioning when they may differ, especially in the presence of velocity terms in potential energy.
  • One participant suggests that for the Hamiltonian to not equal the total energy, explicit time may be necessary.
  • Another participant presents a Lagrangian where the Hamiltonian does not equal the total energy due to the presence of velocity in the potential term.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definition of total energy in the context of static electromagnetic fields and the implications of Noether's theorem.
  • Discussions touch on the gauge dependence of canonical momentum and its implications for the physical interpretation of the Hamiltonian.
  • Participants express differing views on whether the Hamiltonian can be considered the total energy of a particle in certain scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the relationship between the Hamiltonian and total energy, particularly in the context of time dependence and the presence of velocity terms in potential energy. The discussion remains unresolved as to whether a model can exist where the Hamiltonian does not equal the total energy while meeting the specified criteria.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of energy and the assumptions regarding the nature of the potential energy terms. The discussion also highlights the complexity of gauge dependence in the context of electromagnetic fields.

  • #31
vanhees71 said:
Then I'd call ##H## the total energy of the particle, because then it's the conserved quantity related to the conserved quantity from time-translation invariance in the sense of Noether's theorem.
I would also. To me, the only reason that we are interested in energy is because it is conserved. So if there is a conserved quantity and a non-conserved quantity that both have claim to being "energy" then I will always pick the conserved one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
And when there is no hamiltonian at all to describe the system is there still a notion of energy?

i read this:
The Hamiltonian method describes and keeps track of the state of the system of particles and fields at a given time. In the new theory, there are no field variables, and every radiative process depends on contributions from the future as well as from the past! One is forced to view the entire process from start to finish. The only existing classical approach of this kind for particles makes use of the principle of least action, and Feynman’s thesis project was to develop and generalize this approach so that it could be used to formulate the Wheeler–Feynman theory (a theory possessing an action, but without a Hamiltonian). If successful, he should then try to find a method to quantize the new theory.
 
  • #33
Well, the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory was not that an success. Particularly there has never been found a way to quantize it. A very nice treatment of various theories on radiation, including the absorber theory (modulo some typos) can be found in

A. O. Barut, Electrodynamics and classical theory of fields and particles, Dover Publications (1980)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Heidi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
966
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K