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.

We had a couple of examples where we were supposed to calculate the Canonical Transformation (CT), but we never actually talked about a condition that decides whether a transformation is a canonical one or not.

Let me give you an example: We had the transformation: $$P=q \cdot \cot(p), \qquad Q=\ln (\frac{\sin(p)}{q}).$$ How do I see whether this transformation is a canonical one or not?

You don't have to carry out the full calculation, but maybe you can give me a hint what I need to show here?

share|improve this question
More on CT: physics.stackexchange.com/q/69337/2451 –  Qmechanic Jul 2 '13 at 18:00
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

There are three easy tests to check if a transformation is canonical. Note that some multiplicative constants might pop up in certain textbooks, depending on the exact definition of canonical transformation.


Let $x = (p, q)$ be the $2n$ variables, and the transformed variables be $\tilde{x}(x) = (\tilde{p}(p, q), \tilde{q}(p, q))$.

The method of the symplectic jacobian

Let $J = \partial \tilde{x} /\partial x $ be the Jacobian matrix of the transformation. Moreover, let $\mathbb{E}$ be a $2n \times 2n$ block matrix $$ \mathbb{E} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} $$

Then the transformation is canonical if and only if

$$ J\mathbb{E}J^T = \mathbb{E} $$

The method of Poisson brackets

The transformation is canonical if and only if the fundamental Poisson brackets are preserved

$$ \{\tilde{p}_i, \tilde{p}_j\} = 0 \qquad \{\tilde{q}_i, \tilde{q}_j\} = 0 \qquad \{\tilde{q}_i, \tilde{p}_j\} = \delta_{ij} $$

The method of the Liouville differential form

This is somewhat less practical, but I include it for completeness. The transformation is canonical if and only if the differential form $\sum_i p_i \mathrm{d}q_i - \sum_i \tilde{p}_i \mathrm{d}\tilde{q}_i$ is closed.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Hint: Poisson Brackets are canonical invariants, this is

$$\{F,G\}_{q,p}=\{F,G\}_{Q,P} $$

share|improve this answer
so it is sufficient to show that $\{Q,P\}_{q,p}=1$? –  user180097 Jul 2 '13 at 18:09
add comment

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.