Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was reading up on Hamiltonian Mechanics and came across the following:

If a generalized coordinate $q_j$ doesn't explicitly occur in the Hamiltonian, then $p_j$ is a constant of motion (meaning, a constant, independent of time for a true dynamical motion). $q_j$ then becomes a linear function of time. Such a coordinate $q_j$ is called a cyclic coordinate.

The above quote is taken from p. 4 in Ref. 1.

What I don't understand is why $q_j$ is a linear function of time if $p_j$ is constant in time. In other words, why does $p_j$ constant in time imply partial $\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_j}$ is a constant? (In particular, $\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_j}$ could depend on any of the other coordinates or momenta.)


  1. Patrick Van Esch, Hamilton-Jacobi Theory in Classical Mechanics, Lecture notes. The pdf file is available from the author's homepage here.
share|cite|improve this question

OP is right. The text has an error. A cyclic coordinate $q_j$ does not have to be an linear function of $t$.

Example: Consider two canonical pairs $(q,p)$ and $(Q,P)$ with Hamiltonian $H= p Q +P$.

Then $q$ is cyclic, and therefore $p$ is a constant of motion.

$\dot{Q} =\frac{\partial H}{\partial P}=1$, so $Q$ is a linear function of time.

$\dot{q}= \frac{\partial H}{\partial p} = Q$, and hence $q$ is a quadratic function of time.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.