6
$\begingroup$

Can both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms lead to different solutions?

I have a simple system described by the Lagrangian \begin{equation} L(\eta,\dot{\eta},\theta,\dot{\theta})=\eta\dot{\theta}+2\theta^2. \end{equation} The equations of motion are obtained from Euler-Lagrange eq.: \begin{eqnarray} 4\theta-\dot{\eta}=0\; \mathrm{and}\; \dot{\theta}=0, \end{eqnarray} yielding the solution $\eta(t)=4\theta_0t+\eta_0$ where $\eta_0$ and $\theta_0$ are constants.

But when I obtain one of the equations of motion from the Hamiltonian (via Legendre transformation), \begin{equation} H=\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot\eta}\right)\dot\eta+\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot\theta}\right)\dot\theta - L =-2\theta^2, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \dot\eta=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_\eta}=0, \end{equation} the situation is surprisingly different from the Lagrangian approach because $\eta$ is now a constant!

Can someone give a proper explanation for this inconsistency? Am I doing something wrong here?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hints: 1. For starters, there is a primary constraint $p_{\eta}\approx 0$. 2. I discuss this example in my Phys.SE answer here. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic May 18 '17 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ Off the top of my head, note that as you computed, $\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot \eta} = 0$ and so $p_\eta = 0$. As such, $H$ cannot be written as some unique function of $p_\eta$ in any sense, and I don't think that $\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_\eta}$ would be well-defined. $\endgroup$ – JamalS May 18 '17 at 13:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Try to calculate $p_\eta$ ist zero.So you cannot express the velocity in terms of the momenta. This is called a constraint system. Dirac wrote a small book how to deal with that (since Electrodynamics is also a constraint system this is relevant for physics) $\endgroup$ – lalala May 18 '17 at 13:11
7
$\begingroup$

The problem here is that, because there exist constraints of the form $f(q,\,p)=0$, the phase space coordinates of the usual Hamiltonian formulation aren't independent. I'm not sure how you encountered this Lagrangian, but this issue is a common hiccup in electromagnetism and (if you'll pardon a more obscure example) BRST quantisation. The good news is you can still form a Hamiltonian description equivalent to the Lagrangian one. The trick is to append suitable terms to the "naïve" Hamiltonian, as explained here, and as a result the Poisson brackets are upgraded to what are called Dirac brackets.

For your problem the full Hamiltonian is $H=-2\theta^2+c_1 p_\eta+c_2( p_\theta-\eta)$, where the $c_i$ remain to be computed as functions of undifferentiated phase space coordinates. In fact $c_1=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_\eta}=\dot{\eta}=4\theta$ while $c_2=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_\theta}=\dot{\theta}=0$, so $H=-2\theta^2+4\theta p_\eta$. You can verify this gives you the right equations of motion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! It's actually a part of perturbed NLS Lagrangian after an attempt of finding solution using variational method. Are the Dirac's procedure covers all Lagrangian of 'irregular' forms? $\endgroup$ – donnydm May 18 '17 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ @donnydm Given any Lagrangian with consistent equations of motion, this technique will ensure an equivalent Hamiltonian formulation, although if there are higher-order derivatives you also need a trick due to Ostrogradski. (An example of an inconsistent Lagrangian is $L=q$.) $\endgroup$ – J.G. May 18 '17 at 16:07

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.