Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

this doubt is related to Generalized Hamiltonian Dynamics paper by Dirac.

Consider the set of $n$ equations : $p_i$ = $∂L/∂v_i$,

(where $v_i$ is $q_i$(dot) = $dq_i/dt$, or time derivative of $q_i$)($L$ is the lagrangian, $q$ represent degrees of freedom in configuration space)

Now Dirac says : "If the $n$ quantities $∂L/∂v_i$ on the right-hand side of the given equations are NOT independent functions of the velocities, we can eliminate the $v$'s from (the above-given) set of equations and obtain one or more equations: $\phi_j(q, p) = 0$, ($j = 1, 2, ... , m$ if there are $m$ such constraints)"

Could anyone please explain how this comes about? I can't understand how the $v$'s can be necessarily eliminated, and if the $p$'s are not all independent, then we can simply obtain relations like $\sum_i a_ip_i = 0$ (where $a$'s are non-zero coefficients), not involving $q$'s at all.

Thanks (and apologies in case I'm missing something obvious).

share|improve this question
3  
Any source for that paper? –  C.R. Jun 16 '12 at 15:18
    
Here you go (see first 2 pages): docs.google.com/file/d/… –  1989189198 Jun 17 '12 at 9:18
    
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/59936/2451 –  Qmechanic Dec 15 '13 at 10:31
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Maybe an example:

A particle moving in 2 dimensions has a Lagrangian

$$L = \frac{\dot{x}^2 +\dot{y}^2}{2} $$

So $$p_x = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}} = \dot{x}$$ $$p_y = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{y}}=\dot{y}$$

Suppose it's constrained to move on a circle $x^2+y^2=R^2$

Now there is a constraint between the p's which you can get from differentiating the constraining circle, namely $$x\dot{x}+y\dot{y}=0$$ This is a constraint, but not of the type you are talking about, since the Lagrangian is still regular.

To obtain a Lagrangian which is singular rather than regular, we require c onstraints which result in the vanishing of the Hessian matrix $\frac{\partial^2L}{\partial \dot{q}_i \partial \dot{q}_j}$. This means that the Legendre transform (sometimes called the Floer map) from the tangent bundle to the cotangent bundle (phase space) $$\mathcal{FL} : TQ \rightarrow T^{*}Q$$ given by $$(q_i,\dot{q}_i) \rightarrow (q_i, p_i=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i})$$

is not invertible. It's image is restricted by a bunch of constraint functions. (Caveat, assuming we're restricted to a neighbourhood where rank of Hessian is constant).

For example, for the following Lagrangian $$L=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)+\dot{x}\dot{y}+4x\dot{y}+2x^2+4xy$$

the Hessian determinant is easily seen to vanish. The generalized momenta are $$p_x=\dot{x}+\dot{y}$$ $$p_y=\dot{x}+\dot{y}+4x$$ You can then eliminate $\dot{x}$ and $\dot{y}$ from these relations to find your constraint equation.

(Edited to provide example appropriate to the OP's question)

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you! But I still have some doubts... If possible, could you explain in detail (or provide some reference) how all the stuff I quoted from Dirac's paper FOLLOWS from the general result you stated (i.e. how is it a particular example of the latter). –  1989189198 Jun 17 '12 at 9:13
    
Also, I understand your simple example, but you've given a constraint among $q$'s, I can't understand how $∂L/∂v$'s in this case are not independent functions of the $v$'s (in your simple example). If possible, could you give an example where $∂L/∂v$'s are not independent f's of $v$'s, and thus constraints among $q$'s and $p$'s follow from this fact? Thanks, and BTW here is a link to the paper (first two pg's should suffice) : docs.google.com/file/d/… –  1989189198 Jun 17 '12 at 9:17
    
One final thing - even if such an example can be given, it's not necessary that in general, non-independence of $∂L/∂v$'s as functions of $v$'s will lead to elimination of $v$'s. Actually it's difficult for me to exactly picture the mechanism of elimination of $v$'s and thereby obtaining constraints among $q$'s and $p$'s in a general case. Therefore it would be helpful if you could shed light on that, as in a theorem that illustrates how this procedure "works". –  1989189198 Jun 17 '12 at 9:25
    
You are absolutely right, the example I gave was of a nice holonomic constraint, not the type you were looking for. I've added another one, hopefully to show the behaviour you wanted. –  twistor59 Jun 17 '12 at 11:00
    
Oh, that's better... thanks a lot. I apologize to bother you, but IF POSSIBLE, could you also provide a response to my 3rd comment? Thanks again. –  1989189198 Jun 17 '12 at 11:15
show 1 more comment

One of the basic examples of singular actions with this type of constraint is the relativistic particle:

$ S =mc^2 \int d\tau \sqrt { \eta_{\alpha \beta} \dot{x}^{\alpha}\dot{x}^{\beta}} = m c^2\int d\tau \sqrt{{\dot{x}_0}^2 -{\dot{x}_i}^2 }$

The canonical momenta:

$p_{\alpha} = m c^2\frac{\eta_{\alpha\beta} \dot{x}^{\alpha}}{\sqrt { \eta_{\alpha \beta} \dot{x}^{\alpha}\dot{x}^{\beta}}}$

are not functionally independent as they satisfy the constraint equation:

$\eta^{\alpha\beta} p_{\alpha}p_{\beta} = m^2 c^4$

which is equivalent to one of the possibilities

$\phi = p_0 \pm \sqrt{m^2c^4 + p_i^2} = 0$

Now, the method of the elimination of the redundant degree of freedom according to Dirac is to find any additional constraint $\pi$ (gauge fixing) such that

$ \{ \pi, \phi \} = 1$

A natural choice is performed by choosing

$ \pi = t - \tau = 0$

This choice corresponds to choosing the time coordinate as the parameter along the trajectory. In this simple example we can eliminate the time coordinate velocity from the action explicitely:

The action becomes:

$ S =m c^2\int dt \sqrt{1 -{\dot{x}_i}^2 }$

Now, this theory is uncontrained, the canonical momenta

$p_i = -m c^2\frac{\dot{x}_i}{\sqrt{1 -{\dot{x}_i}^2 }}$

are functionally independent, and the Hamiltonian is given by:

$H = p_i \dot{x}_i - L = \sqrt{m^2 c^4 + p_i^2}$

which is the well known relativistic energy.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.