Why are generalized momenta cotangent vectors in symplectic manifolds?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between generalized momenta and cotangent vectors in the context of symplectic manifolds and Lagrangian mechanics. It explains that while generalized velocities are tangent vectors, the generalized momenta, defined as p_i = ∂L/∂dot{q}_i, are cotangent vectors. The confusion arises from the dependence of the Lagrangian on velocity; if the Lagrangian is not linear in velocity, the momentum cannot simply be viewed as a covector at a point in the manifold. The conclusion clarifies that momentum should be treated as a covector field over the entire tangent bundle, facilitating the transition from Lagrangian to Hamiltonian mechanics. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grasping the formulation of dynamics in this mathematical framework.
StatusX
Homework Helper
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
2
I've been reading about the abstract formulation of dynamics in terms of symplectic manifolds, and it's amazing how naturally everything falls out of it. But one thing I can't see is why the generalized momenta should be cotangent vectors. I can see why generalized velocities are tangent vectors, making the Lagrangian a function on the tangent bundle of configuration space. But then the book I'm reading claims that since:

p_i = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q_i}

it follows that pi is clearly a cotangent vector.

To me it seems like what pi is is a function assigning numbers to vectors in the "tangent space of the tangent space of a point in the manifold". Note that by what's in the quotes, I don't mean "the tangent space of the tangent bundle" (which would put the momentum in T^*(TM) ), because it doesn't depend on the change in configuration.

But it also shouldn't be in T^*M unless the Lagrangian is a linear function of velocity, so that its partial derivative with respect to velocity doesn't depend on your location in the tangent space, and so can be taken as a uniform linear functional on the tangent space. What am I missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The \dot{q}^i are, at the point q of M labeled by the generalized coordinates q^i, components of the tangent vector

v = \dot{q}^i \partial_{q^i}

of a curve in configuration space M.

The p_i are, at q, components of a particular covector \omega with respect to a particular basis of covectors. This covector \omega is the covector naturally associated with the tangent vector v by the metric g that comes from the kinetic energy

T = \frac{1}{2} g_{ij} \dot{q}^i \dot{q}^j.

In other words,

\omega \left( u \right) = g \left(v,u\right) = g_{ij} \dot{q}^i u^j[/itex]<br /> <br /> for all tangent vectors u at q.<br /> <br /> Setting \omega = p_i dq^i gives that \omega_j = g_{ij} \dot{q}^i. But, if<br /> <br /> L = \frac{1}{2} g_{jk} \dot{q}^j \dot{q}^k - U \left( q \right),<br /> <br /> then<br /> <br /> \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^j} = g_{jk} \dot{q}^k.
 
Last edited:
Ok, my problem was that, unless the dependence of L on velocity is linear, the covector depends on \dot q. An ordinary covector field is normally defined at each point on the manifold, not on the tangent bundle. But in fact with the momentum you do want a covector field on the entire tangent bundle, or more specifically, a map from the tangent bundle to the cotangent bundle, allowing you to replace the tangent manifold from Lagrangian mechanics with the cotangent manifold from Hamiltonian mechanics. I think I have it now, but please correct me if that sounds wrong. Thanks.
 
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