3
$\begingroup$

If we consider a canonical transformation from $(q,p)$ to $(Q,P)$, it is stated in several sources that by Jacobian rules, $$ \frac{\partial(Q,P)}{\partial(q,p)} = \frac{\partial(Q,P)/\partial(q,P)}{\partial(q,p)/\partial(q,P)}. \tag{1} $$

By taking books such as Riley's Mathematical Methods for physics and engineering, I could confirm that this is indeed true (section 6.4.4). However, I have tried this myself and it seems that I am missing something. For instance the left hand side of the above equation expands in:

$$ \frac{\partial(Q,P)}{\partial(q,p)}=\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\frac{\partial P}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial Q}{\partial p}\frac{\partial P}{\partial q} $$

Now, the numerator of the right hand side is

$$ \frac{\partial(Q,P)}{\partial(q,P)}=\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\frac{\partial P}{\partial P} - \frac{\partial Q}{\partial P}\frac{\partial P}{\partial q}=\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q} $$

Then, the denominator is

$$ \frac{\partial(q,p)}{\partial(q,P)}=\frac{\partial q}{\partial q}\frac{\partial p}{\partial P} - \frac{\partial q}{\partial P}\frac{\partial p}{\partial q}=\frac{\partial p}{\partial P} $$

yielding the right hand side of the first equation above:

$$ \frac{\partial(Q,P)/\partial(q,P)}{\partial(q,p)/\partial(q,P)} = \frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\frac{\partial P}{\partial p} $$

which corresponds to the first term of the second equation above. This means that the second term of the second equation above has to be zero. However, I fail to see why this is true. Assuming that $Q=Q(p,q)$ and $P=P(p,q)$, that term should have a value. What am I missing?

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
New contributor
Rapha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you writing the determinant of the Jacobian? THe notation was not clear to me $\endgroup$ – innisfree yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @innisfree Yes, I meant the determinant of the Jacobian with the above notation. I am sorry it was not clear, I just took the notation found in more than one book (Riley, Hamill, etc.) and assumed it was common... $\endgroup$ – Rapha yesterday
2
$\begingroup$

OP's eq. (1) is true for any invertible coordinate transformation -- they don't need to be canonical coordinates. The trick is to keep track of what is kept constant during the partial differentations. In 2D eq. (1) reads:

$$\begin{align} {\rm LHS} ~=~&\left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\right)_p \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial p}\right)_q - \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial q}\right)_q \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial p}\right)_p\cr ~=~& \left[\left(\frac{\partial q}{\partial q}\right)_p \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\right)_P + \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial q}\right)_p \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial P}\right)_q\right] \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial p}\right)_q \cr &- \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial q}\right)_p \left[\left(\frac{\partial q}{\partial p}\right)_q \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\right)_P +\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial p}\right)_q \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial P}\right)_q \right]\cr ~=~& \left[\left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\right)_P + \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial q}\right)_p \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial P}\right)_q\right] \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial p}\right)_q - \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial q}\right)_p \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial p}\right)_q \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial P}\right)_q \cr ~=~& \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\right)_P\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial p}\right)_q ~=~\left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}\right)_P / \left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial P}\right)_q ~=~{\rm RHS},\end{align}$$ where we used the multi-variable chain rule twice.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I feel that your derivation is obvious, but how do you get from the first line to the second and then the third line? I do not see how the new partial derivatives were introduced $\endgroup$ – Rapha yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic yesterday
0
$\begingroup$

The expression $\frac{\partial(Q,P)/\partial(q,P)}{\partial(q,p)/\partial(q,P)}$ is ratio of Jacobians.

Evaluate each expression independently by eliminating the repeated variables - then divide them.

In your case, $\frac{\partial(Q,P)/\partial(q,P)}{\partial(q,p)/\partial(q,P)}=\frac{\partial Q/\partial q}{\partial p/\partial P}=J$.

The transformation is canonical since $\partial Q/\partial q=1$ and $\partial p/\partial P=1$ which implies $J=1$ where $J$ is the Jacobian.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

Rapha is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

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.