When can I substitute transformations into the Hamiltonian?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion on substituting transformations into the Hamiltonian, it is clarified that while one can derive a new Hamiltonian function K from the original H through canonical transformations, this is not always straightforward. The relationship between K and H depends on whether the transformations introduce time dependence; if they do not, K can be expressed as H evaluated at the transformed coordinates. However, if there is time dependence, K may include additional terms reflecting this, such as the time derivative of the generating function F1. The conversation also touches on the confusion surrounding the four types of generating functions, emphasizing the importance of their specific forms in maintaining consistency in transformations. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for correctly applying canonical transformations in Hamiltonian mechanics.
Coffee_
Messages
259
Reaction score
2
1. If I know that ##H(q_i,p_i,t)## is a valid Hamiltonian for which the hamilton equations hold. Now we are given that ##Q_j(q_i,p_i)## and ##P_j(q_i,p_i)## are canonical transformations. This means that there is a function ##K(Q_j,P_j)##, the new hamiltonian, for which the Hamilton equations hold in the new variables.

QUESTION : What is this new function ##K##? Can I just substitute the transformations into the old ##H## to find ##K##? If not, when is this allowed?

Reason for confusion: My notes from class tell me this is allowed. However any source on the net I find says that in general canonical transformations do not preserve the Hamiltonian and thus ##H## and ##K## are not always equal.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If P and Q depend only p and q, and the there is no additional time dependence in the coordinate transformation, then
$$K(Q, P) = H(q(Q,P), p(Q, P))$$

Otherwise it can take forms such as
$$K(Q, P) = H(q(Q,P), p(Q, P)) + \frac{\partial F_1(q(Q, P), Q, t)}{\partial t} $$
Where for this type of transformation
$$p = \frac{\partial F_1}{\partial q} $$
$$P = -\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial Q} $$
So in this case if ##F_1## has no time dependence then ##K ##is just ##H##at the corresponding coordinates.
 
MisterX said:
If P and Q depend only p and q, and the there is no additional time dependence in the coordinate transformation, then
$$K(Q, P) = H(q(Q,P), p(Q, P))$$

Otherwise it can take forms such as
$$K(Q, P) = H(q(Q,P), p(Q, P)) + \frac{\partial F_1(q(Q, P), Q, t)}{\partial t} $$
Where for this type of transformation
$$p = \frac{\partial F_1}{\partial q} $$
$$P = -\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial Q} $$
So in this case if ##F_1## has no time dependence then ##K ##is just ##H##at the corresponding coordinates.

Thanks for the answer. This is exactly what I have thought up myself by now. One more question since you seem to know the subject if you don't mind?

I'm a bit confused on the 4 ''types'' of generating functions and how their forms are found. For example for ##F(q,Q,p)## the form makes sense because it's just ##F=F(q,Q,p)##, but how does one knows to add the ##-QP## when dealing with the ##F(q,P,t)## type? It seems to work out alright but I seem to not grasp how one can make these 4 distinctions so clear and so strict? What if I take ##F=F(q,P,t)## as the generating function without the ##-QP## part?
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top