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.
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...
Back
Top