Understanding the Change of Variables in the Hannay Angle Proof

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angles Identity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the change of variables in the proof of the Hannay angle, particularly focusing on the mathematical steps involved in transitioning from an integral over the angle variable ##\theta## to an integral over phase space, incorporating a delta function. The scope includes theoretical aspects of classical mechanics and mathematical reasoning related to action-angle variables.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula involving a two-form ##W_{ab}## and discusses its relation to the Hannay angle, questioning how the change of variables is performed.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about which specific step is problematic, indicating a lack of clarity in the transition from an integral over ##\theta## to one over phase space.
  • A participant suggests that the author may have simplified the argument, implying that the delta function's role might not be adequately addressed.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of certain equalities, particularly regarding the dependence of the left-hand side on ##I## while the right-hand side integrates it away.
  • Another participant references a similar discussion in a different paper, suggesting that it might provide a more rigorous approach to the topic.
  • One participant argues that the Dirac delta function cannot be ignored and is essential to the argument, referencing the original paper by Hannay.
  • There is a proposal to distinguish between the action as a function of coordinates and momenta versus its constant value for a given torus.
  • Several participants engage in a back-and-forth about the implications of the formulas presented and their correctness, with some asserting that the original definitions and transitions may not be mathematically sound.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the mathematical steps involved in the change of variables. There is no consensus on whether the author's approach is correct or if it requires further refinement. Multiple competing interpretations of the formulas and their implications are present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential oversights in the treatment of the delta function and the assumptions underlying the integrals. The discussion highlights the complexity of the mathematical transitions without resolving the uncertainties involved.

etotheipi
We have some potential that depends on slowly varying parameters ##\lambda_a##. Using the angle-action variables ##(I, \theta)##, the claim is that we can define a two-form$$W_{ab} = \left\langle \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_a} \frac{\partial I}{\partial \lambda_b} - \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_b} \frac{\partial I}{\partial \lambda_a} \right\rangle$$such that the Hannay angle can be written$$\Delta \theta = \frac{d}{dI} \int_S W_{ab} dS_{ab}$$given that we already worked out that$$\Delta \theta = \int_S \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_a} \left\langle \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_b} \right\rangle - \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_b} \left\langle \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_a} \right\rangle\right) dS_{ab}$$The author begins the proof by noting that the average of some quantity ##A## satisfies$$\langle A \rangle = \oint A(I, \theta) d\theta = \int A(q', p') \delta(I - I') \frac{dq' dp'}{2\pi}$$How has the author performed the change of variables here? The presence of the ##\delta(I - I')## means the integral only picks out when the action variable equals to ##I##. I tried to think about the Stokes' theorem, i.e. taking $$\begin{align*}

\langle A \rangle = \oint \omega = \oint A(I,\theta) \mathrm{d}\theta = \int \mathrm{d} \omega &= \int \mathrm{d} A(I, \theta) \wedge \mathrm{d}\theta \\

&= \int \left( \frac{\partial A}{\partial I} \mathrm{d}I + \frac{\partial A}{\partial \theta} \mathrm{d}\theta \right) \wedge \mathrm{d}\theta \\

&= \int \frac{\partial A}{\partial I} \mathrm{d}I \wedge \mathrm{d}\theta

\end{align*}$$Meanwhile we have that$$\mathrm{d}p \wedge \mathrm{d}q = \text{det}(\mathcal{J}) \mathrm{d}I \wedge \mathrm{d}\theta= \left(\frac{\partial q}{\partial \theta}\frac{\partial p}{\partial I} - \frac{\partial q}{\partial I} \frac{\partial p}{\partial \theta} \right) \mathrm{d}I \wedge \mathrm{d}\theta = \mathrm{d}I \wedge \mathrm{d}\theta$$and then$$\langle A \rangle = \int \frac{\partial A}{\partial I} dq' dp'$$Once in the required form I understand how to prove the result, but I can't figure out how to do this first step. What am I missing? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what author are you following? Also, I'm not sure exactly which the step you are struggling with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
Look like
$$\int_{\{I=const\}}\omega=\int_{\{I\le const\}}d\omega,\quad \omega=I\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial\lambda^i}d\lambda^i=Id\theta$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
andresB said:
what author are you following? Also, I'm not sure exactly which the step you are struggling with.

This is Tong, page 120 and equation (4.174) of this document. I'm struggling mainly to understand the second equality, which changes the integral from an integral over ##\theta## to an integral over phase space, with an added delta function. I figured it might have something to do with Stokes, but haven't gotten their RHS 😞

I'm not sure how to show that$$ \int_{\{ I \leq \text{constant} \}} \frac{\partial A}{\partial I} dq' dp' = \int_{\{ I \leq \text{constant} \}} A(q', p') \delta(I - I') \frac{dq' dp'}{2\pi}$$or otherwise if I made a mistake with Stokes
 
etotheipi said:
I'm struggling mainly to understand the second equality, which changes the integral from an integral over # to an integral over phase space, with an added delta function.
I suspect the author hardly think about accurate sense of this formula with delta function and actually this formula is not used in the sequel and does not influence anything :)
If it is not so, you have to replace argument based on this formula with mathematically correct one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
Ah okay, maybe Tong might have done a little bit of fudging :wink:. Do you think it is still a mostly correct argument? The original paper by Hannay uses a similar expression [equation (6)], but instead he says that ##\langle f \rangle## is defined like that.

1610272054219.png

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/18/2/011/pdf
 
Everything depends on whether formula (6) is the final result or it is used to prove some other theorem. In first case this is just another strange math. slang from the physics textbook. In the second case give me the final result and I will try to obtain it by normal mathematical language
 
etotheipi said:
but instead he says that is defined like that.
what does prohibit to define <f> by the first contour integral and ignore the second integral with delta function?
 
I believe, (6) is only used to prove results later on in the paper, i.e. he uses it as his definition of the ##\langle \cdot \rangle## notation.

I found another discussion in this paper by Berry:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/425d/786cd1e3b58dcab757951df11a1572d6bf87.pdf
In section 2, author derives a similar equation (15), but maybe in a more rigorous way?

The theorem Tong tries to prove is:$$\int_S \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_a} \left\langle \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_b} \right\rangle - \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_b} \left\langle \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_a} \right\rangle\right) dS_{ab} = \frac{d}{dI} \int_S \left\langle \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_a} \frac{\partial I}{\partial \lambda_b} - \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \lambda_b} \frac{\partial I}{\partial \lambda_a} \right\rangle dS_{ab}$$
 
  • #10
Equation (15) is completely clear; the last formula in your post is also clear. Both follow from #3
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
  • #11
note that the equality
$$\oint A(I,\theta)\mathrm{d}\theta=\int\frac{\partial A}{\partial I}\mathrm{d}I\wedge\mathrm{d}\theta$$
cannot be true because the LHS depends on ##I## while on the RHS ##I## has been integrated away. (this is maybe easier to see in the more straightforward definition of the average ##\left\langle f\right\rangle =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}f(I,\theta)d\theta##)

Also, the Dirac delta cannot be so easily ignored as it is indeed used (see for example the appendix in the oringial paper of Hannay).

Now, As remarked by Hannay in the appendix of his paper, we have to distinguish the action as a function of q, p, and the external parameters ##I'=I'(q,p,\lambda)## and the constant value of ##I## for a given torus.
I think what happens is more or less as following:

$$\begin{align*}
\oint A(I,\theta)\mathrm{d}\theta =\oint\left[\int A(I',\theta)\delta(I'-I)dI'\right]\mathrm{d}\theta
=\int dI'\oint A(I',\theta)\mathrm{\delta(I'-I)}d\theta
=\int dI'\int\frac{d}{dI'}\left[A(I',\theta)\mathrm{\delta(I'-I)}dI'\wedge d\theta\right]
=\int A(I',\theta)\mathrm{\delta(I'-I)}dI'\wedge d\theta
=\int A(q,p)\mathrm{\delta(I'(q,p,\lambda)-I)}dp\wedge dq
\end{align*}$$
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
  • #12
andresB said:
cannot be true because the LHS depends on while on the RHS has been integrated away
nevertheless it is true because one should understand what was written:
$$\int_{I=const}A(I,\theta)d\theta=\int_{I\le const}\frac{\partial A}{\partial I}(I,\theta)dI\wedge d\theta$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K