Proof of Hamiltonian equations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the relationship between Hamiltonian equations and the derivatives of the Hamiltonian function H. The initial equation to prove is that the partial derivative of H with respect to generalized coordinates equals the time derivative of momentum. A discrepancy arises when calculating the partial derivative of H, leading to confusion over the signs and terms involved. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the technique for deriving the Hamiltonian's differential, which involves only canonical variables and their differentials. Clarifying these concepts is essential for resolving the differences in the derived equations.
Daaavde
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
So, I should prove that:
- \frac{\partial H}{\partial q_i} = \dot{p_i}
And it is shown that:
- \frac{\partial H}{\partial q_i} = - p_j \frac{\partial \dot{q_j}}{\partial q_i} + \frac{\partial \dot{q_j}}{\partial q_i} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q_j}} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i} = \dot{p_i}
Where the first two terms delete each other (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q_j}} = p_j) and the third one is equal to \dot{p_i} because of the Lagrange equation.

The problem is that when I take the partial derivative of H = \sum \dot{q_i}p_i - L, I get:
- \frac{\partial H}{\partial q_i} = - p_j \frac{\partial \dot{q_j}}{\partial q_i} - \dot{q_j} \frac{\partial p_j}{\partial q_i} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i} = \dot{p_i}
Because I derive a product.

Now, my second term is completely different (even the sign doesn't match). Why is that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, I can't see how that answers the question.
There are no time derivatives here or maybe I overlooked something.
 
Ignore the time part. Make sure you understand the technique that yields the differential of the Hamiltonian that only has the differentials of the canonical variables (and time). From that, the partial derivatives w.r.t. canonical variables follow easily.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top