1
$\begingroup$

In Landau and Lifshitz Mechanics, $\S50$ Canonical variables a time-independent Hamiltonian is considered, and a canonical transformation is done such that adiabatic invariant $I$ becomes the new momentum. Then the angle variable is found as

$$w=\frac{\partial S_0(q,I;\lambda)}{\partial I},$$

where $S_0$ is abbreviated action (and generating function for the canonical transformation), $q$ is old position variable and $\lambda$ is a constant parameter.

Now L&L say:

Since the generating function $S_0(q,I;\lambda)$ does not depend explicitly on time, the new Hamiltonian $H'$ is just $H$ expressed in terms of the new variables. In other words, $H'$ is the energy $E(I)$, expressed as a function of the action variable. Accordingly, Hamilton's equations in canonical variables are $$\dot I=0,\;\;\;\dot w=\frac{\mathrm dE(I)}{\mathrm dI}.\tag{50.4}$$

Now my question is: why does $H'=E$ not depend also on $w$? $H$ does in general depend on old position variable $q$ (even if it does not depend explicitly on time), so why shouldn't $H'$ depend on angle variable?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

This is more or less an exercise in chasing definitions. The adiabatic invariant $I$ is defined as $$ I\equiv \oint p \frac{\mathrm{d}q}{2\pi}\tag{49.7}$$ where the integral is taken over the path for given $E$ and $\lambda$. The external parameter $\lambda(t)$ is a slowly varying function of time $t$ in $\S49$, but is assumed to be a constant in $\S50$. Let us suppress the role of $\lambda$ in what follows to keep formulas simple. Then $I=f(E)$ is only a function of the energy $E$. Combined with the fact that the Hamiltonian $H$ does not depend explicitly on time, it show that the Kamiltonian ($\equiv$ the new Hamiltonian) $$H^{\prime}~\equiv~ K~=~H~=~E~=~f^{-1}(I)$$ is only a function of $I$, which is also the new momentum.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah I see now: $I$ can't depend on neither $p$ nor $q$ since they are integrated away, and thus $w$, depending on $q$, can't somehow appear in the final expression for $I$. Thus, as $I=f(E)$, $E$ also can't have $w$ in its definition. $\endgroup$ – Ruslan May 28 '16 at 16:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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