Legendre Transformation of the Hamiltonian

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Legendre transformation of the Hamiltonian in the context of classical mechanics, exploring the relationships between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations. Participants examine the mathematical structure of these transformations and their implications for generalized coordinates and momenta.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formulation of the Hamiltonian as a Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian, questioning whether a similar transformation can be applied to momenta instead of coordinates.
  • Another participant asserts that the proposed transformation cannot be performed, prompting further inquiry into the reasons behind this limitation.
  • A participant seeks clarification on whether the inability to perform the transformation is due to physical or mathematical constraints, noting the difference in treatment of single-variable versus multivariable functions in Legendre transformations.
  • One participant provides a detailed mathematical explanation of Legendre transformations, emphasizing the need to eliminate variables appropriately and the roles of generalized coordinates and velocities.
  • Another participant critiques the formulation presented by the first post, arguing that the Lagrangian should only be defined in terms of generalized coordinates and velocities, not momenta.
  • A later reply reinforces the importance of recognizing the dependencies of the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian on their respective variables, clarifying the structure of the Hamiltonian in relation to position variables and momenta.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of Legendre transformations to momenta, with some asserting that it is not valid while others question the reasoning behind this claim. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the legitimacy of the proposed transformation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of variable dependencies and the definitions of the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian, indicating potential limitations in the assumptions made about the transformations.

Simfish
Gold Member
Messages
811
Reaction score
2
It's given as this

[tex]H\left(q_i,p_j,t\right) = \sum_m \dot{q}_m p_m - L(q_i,\dot q_j(q_h, p_k),t) \,.[/tex]

But if it's a Legendre transformation, then couldn't you also do this?

[tex]H\left(q_i,p_j,t\right) = \sum_m \dot{p}_m q_m - L(p_i,\dot p_j(p_h, q_k),t) \,.[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, you can not.
 
Why not? Is it something we physically cannot do (perhaps due to our assumptions), or mathematically cannot do? The Wikipedia article for Legendre transformations only showed these transformations for functions with single-variable arguments, not multivariate arguments
 
If you have a function:

[tex] z = f(x, y)[/tex]

and the derivative of [itex]z[/itex] w.r.t. [itex]x[/itex] is denoted by:

[tex] X(x, y) \equiv \frac{\partial z}{\partial x}[/tex]

then, the function:

[tex] w \equiv z - X \, x[/tex]

is a Legendre transform of [itex]z[/itex], w.r.t. [itex]x[/itex] only! Its total differential is:

[tex] dw = dz - X \, dx - x \, dX = X \, dx + \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \, dy - X \, dx - x \, dX[/tex]

[tex] dw =\frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \, dy - x \, dX[/tex]

i.e. w is to be treated as a function of X and y:

[tex] \frac{\partial w}{\partial X} = -x, \ \frac{\partial w}{\partial y} = \frac{\partial z}{\partial y}[/tex]

Of course, you need to eliminate [itex]x[/itex] from the equation:

[tex] X = X(x, y) \Rightarrow x = f(X, y)[/tex]

Notice that the variables w.r.t. which we have not performed a Legendre transform still remain arguments of the transforme dfunction.

Similarly, [itex]-H[/itex] is a Leg. trans. of [itex]L[/itex] w.r.t. [itex]\dot{q}[/itex] and the respective partial derivative:

[tex] p \equiv \frac{\partial L(t, q, \dot{q})}{\partial \dot{q}}[/tex]

is the generalized momentum. Therefore, [itex]H[/itex] is to be treated as a function of [itex]q[/itex] (a variable over which we had not performed a Legendre transform). [itex]p[/itex] (the derivative w.r.t. the variable that we had transformed, namely the generalized velocity) and, possibly time [itex]t[/itex] for open systems.
 
Oh okay I see. Thanks!
 
Simfish said:
[tex] H\left(q_i,p_j,t\right) = \sum_m \dot{p}_m q_m - \mathbf{L(p_i,\dot p_j(p_h, q_k),t)} \,.[/tex]

The bolded part does not make any sense at all because the Lagrangian is defined as a function of generalized coordinates, velocities and, possibly, time.
 
Of course the equation should read

[tex]H(q,p,t)=\sum_{m} p_m \dot{q}_m(q,p,t)-L[q,\dot{q}(q,p,t)].[/tex]

It is very important to remember that the Hamiltonian depends on position variables, canonical momenta and sometimes explicitly on time, while the Lagrangian depends on position variables, their time derivatives (generalized velocities) and (sometimes) explicitly on time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K