2
$\begingroup$

From the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism the solution for the unperturbed hamiltonian $H_0$ has a generating function $S(q,\alpha,t)$ such that $$K_0 = H_0(q, \frac{\partial S}{\partial q},t) + \frac{\partial S}{\partial t}= 0.$$ For the dynamics generated by $H_0$, $(\alpha,\beta)$ are constants since $\dot{\alpha} = -\frac{\partial K_0}{\partial \beta } = 0$ and similarily for $\dot{\beta} = \frac{\partial K_0}{\partial \alpha}=0$. Futhermore this transformation $(q,p)$ -> $(\alpha,\beta)$ preserves the equations of motion.

For the new Hamiltonian $H = H_0 + \Delta H$, $(\alpha,\beta)$ are still valid coordinates such that the exact equations of motions for those variables are now given by $\dot{\alpha} = -\frac{\partial K}{\partial \beta }$ and $\dot{\beta} = \frac{\partial K}{\partial \alpha }$.

where $K = K_0 +\Delta H$. Why is this the case, how come these new equations for $(\dot{\alpha}, \dot{\beta})$ will give the exact equations of motion for $(\alpha,\beta)$?

Reference: page 2 of https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-09-classical-mechanics-iii-fall-2014/resources/mit8_09f14_chapter_5/

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$
  1. In a perhaps more logical notation, let $$H(q,p,t)=H_0(q,p,t) + \Delta H(q,p,t).\tag{A}$$ Let the Kamiltonian $$K(Q,P,t)~:=~\Delta H(q,p,t) \tag{B}$$ be designed to yield the interaction picture, i.e. the un-perturbed Kamiltonian $$K_0~\equiv~ 0\tag{C}$$ is trivial.

  2. Now perform a canonical transformation (CT) $$(q,p,t)\quad\longrightarrow\quad(Q,P,t)\tag{D}$$ with type-2 generating function $S(q,P,t)$ satisfying the un-perturbed Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) eq. $$\begin{align} \frac{\partial S}{\partial t} ~=~&K-H~\stackrel{(A)+(B)+(C)}{=}~K_0-H_0\cr ~=~&-H_0(q,\frac{\partial S}{\partial q},t).\end{align} \tag{E}$$

  3. Note that the coordinate transformation (D) is both a type 2 CT wrt. the perturbed pair $(H,K)$ and the unperturbed pair $(H_0,K_0)$ because $K-H=K_0-H_0$.

  4. The un-perturbed Kamilton's equations read $$ \frac{dQ^i}{dt}~=~\frac{\partial K_0}{\partial P_i} \quad\text{and}\quad \frac{dP_i}{dt}~=~-\frac{\partial K_0}{\partial Q^i}.\tag{F}$$ The perturbed Kamilton's equations read $$ \frac{dQ^i}{dt}~=~\frac{\partial K}{\partial P_i} \quad\text{and}\quad \frac{dP_i}{dt}~=~-\frac{\partial K}{\partial Q^i}.\tag{G}$$ That they have the exact same form as Hamilton's equations is the defining property of a CT, cf. OP's title question.

  5. Note that even though the new coordinates $(Q,P)$ are exactly the same for the un-perturbed and the perturbed system, the solutions for the un-perturbed eq. (F) and the perturbed eq. (G) are not (necessarily) the same.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ The transformation is canonical with respect to $H_0$ only. Why does adding $\Delta H$ yields these equations ? We could have gotten for example that the new K requires an additional generating function, or anything else for it to be canonical. Wouldn't a starting point be the condition that a transformation is canonical if $p\dot{q} - H_0 = P\dot{Q} - H_0 + \dot{F}$ ? In other words why being canonical for $H_0$ implies it being canonical for $\Delta H$ but now with respect to the Kamiltonian $K = H_0 + \dot{S} + \Delta H$ ? $\endgroup$
    – qubitz
    Commented Aug 1 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ Where is the answer to : why being canonical for $H_0$ implies it being canonical for $\Delta H$ but now with respect to the Kamiltonian $K = H_0 + \dot{S} + \Delta H$ ? $\endgroup$
    – qubitz
    Commented Aug 1 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, could you elaborate on point 3. How can I note that (D) is a canonical transformation for K from this ? This would answer my question, thank you $\endgroup$
    – qubitz
    Commented Aug 1 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Aug 3 at 12:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.