2
$\begingroup$

In Ref. 1, in section 3, they wrote: \begin{equation} L'(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q},t)~=~L(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q},t)-\frac{dS(q,\dot{q},t)}{dt}.\tag{14} \end{equation} Then the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is \begin{equation} \frac{\partial S}{\partial t}~=~-H_0,\tag{27} \end{equation} where $$H_0~=~p\dot{q}+\pi\ddot{q}-L,\tag{28}$$ where $$p~=~\dfrac{\partial S}{\partial q}\quad\text{and}\quad \pi~=~\dfrac{\partial S}{\partial \dot{q}}.\tag{29}$$

I was confused because here the action is a function of $\dot{q}$ ! Then I read this answer by Qmechanic, and I had this question: is this action a Hamilton's principle function? If yes, in Hamilton's principal function $S(q,\alpha,t)$, the $\alpha$ is an integration constant. But here we have $S(q,\dot{q},t)$; $\dot{q}$ is not an integration constant. If no, what is that action?

EDIT: I want to know if the function $S$ is considered as an action. If yes, I need an explanation on how an action could be a function of $\dot{q}$? And if no, how is this function related to the known action $S[q]$?

References:

  1. B.M. Pimentel & R.G. Teixeira, Hamilton-Jacobi formulation for singular systems with second order Lagrangians, arXiv:hep-th/9512099.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The Lagrangian is almost never written in terms of $ \ddot{q} $ or anything higher. $\endgroup$ – QuantumFool Oct 8 '16 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ @QuantumFool "almost" never , but not in my research case, where I'm interested in higher order derivatives Lagrangian. $\endgroup$ – Milou Oct 8 '16 at 0:42
  • $\begingroup$ Related question by OP: physics.stackexchange.com/q/283166/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 10 '16 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ This could be an answer for that post if S is the action.. but I don't know if S is the action or just a function. If it's not the action, then this is not the answer for the question in the other post. $\endgroup$ – Milou Oct 10 '16 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ If it's not the action, there should be a relation between the S and the action of course.. they're not totally different $\endgroup$ – Milou Oct 10 '16 at 15:01
1
$\begingroup$

OP is asking about Ref. 1. This touches upon several topics:

  1. Second-order Lagrangian formulations and their corresponding Ostrogradsky Hamiltonian formulation. This is discussed in e.g. this Phys.SE post, where it is explained how to reduce to first-order formulation in the non-singular case.

  2. Singular Legendre transformations, and constraints. See e.g. Ref. 2 & 3.

  3. Caratheodory’s method of equivalent Lagrangians, and its connection to Hamilton-Jacobi theory. This is explained in Ref. 4 in the first-order case.

Now let us return to OP's title question. Let us stress that the Hamilton's principal function $S$ and the off-shell action functional $S[q]$ are different objects. (For first-order Lagrangians, this is e.g. explained in my Phys.SE answers here & here.) In particular, eq. (14) is part of Caratheodory’s method of equivalent Lagrangians. The $S$ appearing in eq. (14) is Hamilton's principal function, not the off-shell action functional. It depends on velocities because the theory is of second order.

References:

  1. B.M. Pimentel & R.G. Teixeira, Hamilton-Jacobi formulation for singular systems with second order Lagrangians, arXiv:hep-th/9512099.

  2. P.A.M. Dirac, Lectures on QM, (1964).

  3. M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems, 1994.

  4. H.A. Kastrup, Canonical theories of Lagrangian dynamical systems in physics, Phys. Rep. 101 (1983) 1; Section 2.4.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Alright, but now I'm confused. 1. why do we use the off-shell action to determine the equations of motion instead of the on-shell one? 2. Doesn't "on/off-shell" determine whether any term satisfies the e.o.m or not? 3. Also when do we use the on-shell action instead of the off-shell one? 4. Is that only related to higher order derivative Lagrangians? 5. or does it have a connection with virtual or unknown paths? $\endgroup$ – Milou Nov 1 '16 at 0:21
  • $\begingroup$ 1. One needs the eoms to construct the on-shell action in the first place. 2. Yes. 3. Too broad question. 4. No. 5. Off-shell action also applies to virtual paths. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Nov 1 '16 at 8:12

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.