Question about the Hamilton Jaccobi Equation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeno Marx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hamilton
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, specifically the interpretation and implications of the equation H + ∂S/∂t = 0, where H represents the Hamiltonian and S denotes the action. The author explores the relationship between the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian, concluding that the equation suggests a system at rest, which contradicts its purpose as an equation of motion. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of finding new canonical coordinates (Q, P) through a canonical transformation, leading to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and the conservation of the Hamiltonian when it is not explicitly time-dependent.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics and the Hamiltonian function.
  • Familiarity with Lagrangian mechanics and the concept of action.
  • Knowledge of canonical transformations and their significance in phase space.
  • Basic grasp of energy conservation principles in classical mechanics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in classical mechanics.
  • Explore canonical transformations and their role in simplifying complex mechanical systems.
  • Investigate the relationship between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of mechanics.
  • Learn about gauge invariance and its implications in Hamiltonian dynamics.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of classical mechanics, and researchers interested in advanced topics in Hamiltonian dynamics and action principles.

Zeno Marx
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hi, I was wondering about the interpretation of the Hamilton Jaccobi equation.

Naively we have H + [itex]\partial[/itex]S/[itex]\partial[/itex]t = 0 where H is the Hamiltonian and S is the action. But the action is the time integral of the Lagrangian so you would expect [itex]\partial[/itex]S/[itex]\partial[/itex]t = L

Thus H + L = KE + PE + KE - PE = 2KE = 0

(PE = potential energy, KE = Kinetic energy)

Which simply says that then system is not moving which seems odd for something billed as an equation of motion. Something is clearly very wrong here but what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The idea is to find new canonical coordinates [itex](Q,P)[/itex] of phase space such that all trajectories are described by by [itex](Q,P)=\text{const}[/itex]. Thus you look for the corresponding canonical transformation from the original canonical coordinates [itex](q,p)[/itex]. You can easily show that up to "gauge invariance" this is achieved by the demand that
[tex]H'(t,Q,P)=0.[/tex]
To that end we introducd the generating function [itex]g(t,q,P)[/itex] for this canonical transformation. The relation between the old and the new quantities is
[tex]p=\partial_q g, \quad Q=\partial_P g, \quad H'(t,Q,P)=H(t,q,p)+\partial_t g =H \left(t,q,\partial_q g \right)+\partial_t g\stackrel{!}{=}0.[/tex]
This is the Hamilton-Jacobi equation.

For the case of a Hamilton function that is not explicitly dependent on time, the Hamiltonian is conserved along the possible trajectories of the system (energy conservation). Then from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation you get
[tex]H(t,q,p)=E=-\partial_t g=\text{const} \; g=-E t + S(q,E,P_2,\ldots,P_f),[/tex]
where we use [itex]E[/itex] as one of the new canonical momenta, and [itex]S[/itex] is not explicitly time dependent.

Now we evaluate the action functional in terms of [itex]g[/itex]:
[tex]A=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t (\dot{q} \dot{p}-H)=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t (\dot{q} \partial_q g+\partial_t g)=g_2-g_1,[/tex]
where
[tex]g_j=g(t=t_j,q(t_j),P).[/tex]
Note that [itex]P=\text{const}[/itex] according to the construction of the new canonical coordinates. As you see, indeed [itex]g[/itex] is closely related to the action.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K