1
$\begingroup$

Let $(M,\omega)$ with $M$ a $2n$-dimensional manifold and $\omega$ a $2$-form on $M$, furthermore let $(M,\omega)$ be a symplectic manifold (smooth, differentiable, continuous, whatever is needed for the physics). Then we can define the phase space of a classical system as $M = T^\star Q$ for some configuration manifold $Q$. We can define the Hamiltonian as a map $H: T^\star Q \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with the induced vector field $X_H$ on $T^\star Q$. Let's have a look at one of the Hamilton equations:

$$\frac{dq^i}{dt} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_i}.$$

I understand that the right hand side of the equation is properly read as (for a chart $(U,\chi)$ in the atlas of $T^\star Q$ with $\chi: U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ describing the Darboux coordinates $q^1,...,q^n,p_1,...,p_n$ (each of these is a mapping from $U$ to $\mathbb{R}$))

$$\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_i} = \Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\Big)_m H = \partial_i (H \circ \chi^{-1})(\chi(m)),$$

for some $m \in U$.

The left hand side is not clear for me. I know that $X_H$ induces an integral curve $\gamma: I \subseteq \mathbb{R} \rightarrow T^\star Q$. But my question is the following: Is it true that if the Hamilton equations are satisfied that we set $I = \mathbb{R}$ (i.e. complete integral curve) and how to interpret $\frac{d q^i}{dt}$, is this just $\frac{d}{dt} (q^i \circ \gamma)$ evaluated at $t=0$ (with $\gamma(0)=m$)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand your question. Are you wondering about whether or not the solutions to Hamilton's equations are valid for all times? If so, this is not a question about physics, but about ordinary differential equations. $\endgroup$ – QuantumBrick Jan 9 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ I am asking about the mathematically rigorous meaning of $dq^i/dt$. $q^i$'s are just coordinate maps as I described. Maybe this question should be asked at math exchange I agree. $\endgroup$ – Mathphys meister Jan 9 at 21:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, they are just the derivatives of a curve parametrized by $t$. It doesn't matter where it lives. Write the solutions to Hamilton's equations as $\gamma(t,q_0,p_0)$, and take the derivative wrt $t$. $\endgroup$ – QuantumBrick Jan 9 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ $\gamma$ cannot depend on 3 variables, it maps from $\mathbb{R}$. That does not make sense $\endgroup$ – Mathphys meister Jan 9 at 21:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The solution to Hamilton's equations is an isotopy. It is a family of curves with respect to $t$, each of them changing with respect to the initial point: $\gamma: T^*M \times \mathbb{R} \to T^*M$ $\endgroup$ – QuantumBrick Jan 9 at 21:49
2
$\begingroup$

Your interpretation in the last paragraph is almost right, but the point of evaluation, and some logical quantifiers seem incorrect (or atleast it's phrased a little awkwardly). Also your index for interpreting the RHS should be $\partial_{n+i}$. Here's a general rule in physics: is you have a quantity which should be a function of a quantity "$\ddot{\smile}$", but somehow miraculously becomes a function another quantity "$:)$", then what it really means is that there is an extra composition which is going on, which the author has not made explicit.


Hamilton's Equations:

Let me just spell out in full gory detail how (I sometimes like) to "read" Hamilton's equations. Start with a $2n$-dimensional smooth symplectic manifold $(M, \omega)$, and a certain smooth $H: M \to \Bbb{R}$. Then, we get an induced vector field on $M$ via $X_H = \omega^{\sharp}(dH)$ (the musical isomorphism). Then, the fully geometric way of stating Hamilton's equations is that a smooth curve $\gamma: I \subset \Bbb{R} \to M$ ($I$ an open interval which doesn't have to be all of $\Bbb{R}$) is said to satisfy Hamilton's equations (with respect to $H$) iff $\gamma$ is an integral curve of the vector field $X_H$.

In terms of a Darboux chart $(U, \chi)$, where the coordinate functions are labelled as $\chi(\cdot) = \left(q^1(\cdot), \dots, q^n(\cdot), p_1(\cdot), \dots, p_n(\cdot) \right)$, the condition of $\gamma$ being an integral curve of $X_H$ can be equivalently written as: for all $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, and all $t \in I \cap \gamma^{-1}[U]$, \begin{align} \begin{cases} (q^i \circ \gamma)'(t) = \dfrac{\partial H}{\partial p_i}\bigg|_{\gamma(t)} &\equiv \partial_{n+i}(H \circ \chi^{-1})_{\chi(\gamma(t))} \\\\ (p_i \circ \gamma)'(t) = -\dfrac{\partial H}{\partial q^i}\bigg|_{\gamma(t)} &\equiv -\partial_{i}(H \circ \chi^{-1})_{\chi(\gamma(t))} \end{cases} \end{align} where $\equiv$ above means "same thing written more explicitly/in different notation".


Euler-Lagrange Equations:

Although you didn't ask about this, let me give a second illustration of my "general rule" above. The Euler-Lagrange equations are typically written as \begin{align} \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^i} &= \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial q^i} \end{align}

This is particularly infamous for causing a lot of confusion on its meaning, especially with regards to "how can $\dot{q}^i$ and $q^i$ be treated as independent variables" and so on.

Anyway, here, the setup is that we have a smooth $n$-dimensional manifold $Q$ (almost always we assume we have a Riemannian/Lorentizian metric $g$ depending on what purposes we have in mind... but for now we don't need it). Next, we have a smooth function $L: TQ \to \Bbb{R}$. In this case, since everything is a function on manifolds, how can we even take time derivatives of $\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^i}$?

Well, what we actually mean is that given a chart $(U, \chi)$ on $TQ$, whose coordinate functions we label as $\chi(\cdot) = \left( q^1(\cdot), \dots, q^n(\cdot), \dot{q}^1(\cdot), \dots, \dot{q}^n(\cdot)\right)$ a smooth curve $\gamma : I \to Q$ satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations on the chart $(U, \chi)$ if the tangent lift $\gamma' : I \to TQ$ is such that for all $t \in I \cap (\gamma')^{-1}[U]$ and all $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$,

\begin{align} \dfrac{d}{ds}\bigg|_{s=t} \left(s \mapsto \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^i}\bigg|_{\chi(\gamma'(s))}\right) &= \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial q^i} \bigg|_{\chi(\gamma'(t))} \end{align} which being even more explicit means that \begin{align} \dfrac{d}{ds}\bigg|_{s=t} \left( s \mapsto \partial_{n+i}\left( L \circ \chi^{-1}\right)_{\chi(\gamma'(s))} \right) &= \partial_{i}\left( L \circ \chi^{-1}\right)_{\chi(\gamma'(t))}. \end{align}

BTW, here $\gamma': I \to TQ$ obviously doesn't mean the limit of a difference quotient, since the target space of $\gamma$ is a manifold $Q$. In this context, for each $t \in I$, $\gamma'(t) := T\gamma_t(1_t) \in T_{\gamma(t)}Q$ is the tangent mapping/push-forward mapping of $\gamma$ at $t$, namely $T\gamma_t : T_tI = T_t\Bbb{R} \to T_{\gamma(t)}Q$, applied to the unit tangent vector $1_t \in T_t \Bbb{R}$.


As you can see, the notation gets pretty cumbersome very easily, and it requires a LOT of words to define all the objects before hand. This is partly why people often use the coordinate functions $q^i, \dot{q}^i, p_i$ with two meanings: sometimes they really mean it as functions from an open subset of a manifold into $\Bbb{R}$, but sometimes they mean it as a "function of time" by composing with a curve which maps from an interval into a manifold.

$\endgroup$

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.