Liouville's Theorem: Sketching Rectangle Motion in px-x Plane

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clau
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
Liouville's theorem states that the motion of phase-space points defined by Hamilton's equations conserves phase-space volume. The Hamiltonian for a particle under a constant force is given, and the discussion focuses on how to sketch the motion of a defined phase-space rectangle over time. Participants suggest solving the equations of motion for the corners of the rectangle to track their trajectories, noting that the motion will not follow elliptical paths due to the constant force. The equations of motion are provided, and there is clarification that while the initial velocity may be zero, it changes as time progresses, similar to an object in a gravitational field. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately depicting the evolution of the phase-space volume while adhering to the principles of Hamiltonian dynamics.
Clau
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


According to Liouville's theorem, the motion of phase-space points defined by Hamilton's equations conserves phase-space volume. The Hamiltonian for a single particle in one dimension, subjected to a constant force F, is

H(x,p_{x}) = \frac{p_{x}^2}{2.m} - F.x
Consider the phase space rectangle of initial points defined by
0 < x < A and 0 < p < B

Let the points in the rectangle move according to Hamilton's equations for a time t and sketch how the rectangle changes with time in the p_{x}-x plane.

Homework Equations


\frac{d\rho}{dt}= \frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} +\sum_{i=1}^d\left(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial q^i}\dot{q}^i +\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial p_i}\dot{p}_i\right)=0.

The Attempt at a Solution


Substituting the Hamiltonian from the problem inside the Liouville's equation I can see that the density of particles of this volume is constant.
But, I don't know how to show the movement of this rectangle with time.
I guess that there is no difference...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can be more explicit about picturing the motion of the rectangle for the harmonic oscillator. You know p^2/2m+k*x^2/2=E which is a constant of motion. So the points in phase space move on concentric ellipses. That should make your sketch a little more expressive.
 
But it was a constant force, not an oscillator, right?

It was some time ago that I did these things, but an approach could be to solve the equations of motion for x and px and then use the corners of the rectangle in phase space as starting conditions for 4 different trajectories. Then you can see where the corners are at time t later and how the phase space volume has evolved... and all points that started inside the rectangle will still be there. Just an idea.
 
andrew1982 said:
But it was a constant force, not an oscillator, right?

It was some time ago that I did these things, but an approach could be to solve the equations of motion for x and px and then use the corners of the rectangle in phase space as starting conditions for 4 different trajectories. Then you can see where the corners are at time t later and how the phase space volume has evolved... and all points that started inside the rectangle will still be there. Just an idea.

Ooops, you are right! It's not a oscillator. Tracing the motion of the corners is pretty much what I was suggesting - except the trajectories will no longer be ellipses. Be careful not to assume that the boundaries of the region remain straight lines.
 
Thank you, guys!

So, I'm using the following equations:

\dot{x}=\frac{dH(x,p_{x})}{dp_{x}} = \frac{p_{x}}{m}

\dot{p}_{x}=-\frac{dH(x,p_{x})}{dx} = F

Now I thinking to substitute inside these equations the points of the corners.
(0,0), (A,0), (A,B) and (0,B).

For instance:
(0,0)

\dot{x}=0

\dot{p}_{x}=F

So, there is a variation in the p-axis, but there's no variation in the x-axis (I don't know if this is the right interpretation).

Do you think that I'm going in the right way?
Thanks a lot for your comments.
 
You have p increasing linearly in time. As p becomes non-zero then the derivative of x becomes non-zero and x becomes nonzero. So saying xdot is zero is only true at a particular time. The physics here is SAME as an object falling in a uniform gravitational field. You know how to solve that, right?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top