1
$\begingroup$

In Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, while introducing the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, he argues that the equation $$H(q_1, ... , q_n; \frac{\partial S}{\partial q_1}, ..., \frac{\partial S}{\partial q_n}; t) + \frac{\partial S}{\partial t} = 0$$ is a partial differential equation in $(n + 1)$ variables $q_1, ... , q_n; t$.

He then proceeds to say that the solution (if it exists) will be of the form $$S(q_1, ... , q_n; \alpha_1, ... , \alpha_{n+1}; t)$$ where the quantities $\alpha_1, ... , \alpha_{n+1}$ are the $(n + 1)$ constants of integration.

How is time a variable? Isn't it the parameter we're integrating over?

Perhaps this warrants some context. He introduces the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with the motivation to find a canonical transformation that relates the canonical coordinates at a time $t$ -- $(q(t), p(t))$ -- and the initial coordinates $(q_o, p_o)$ at $t = 0$. I hence get that time must be a variable here. However, it is still the parameter we integrate the Hamilton-Jacobi over in order to get $S$, right? Where does the $(n+1)^{th}$ constant of integration come from?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

the action function in the HJ formalism is dependent on time through the upper bound.

$$S(q_i,t,\alpha_i,t_0)=\int_{t_0}^tL(q_i,\partial_tq_i,t')dt'$$ in cases of Lagrangian that is independent (explicitly) of time then the constant of integration conjugate to $t$ let's call it $\alpha_t$ is simply the Energy.

read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%E2%80%93Jacobi_equation#Hamilton's_principal_function

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$
  1. The HJ equation is a non-linear 1st-order PDE in $n+1$ variables $(q^1,\ldots,q^n,t)$, namely the generalized positions and time, which in principle enter on equal footing.

  2. A complete$^1$ solution, known as Hamilton's principal function $S(q,\alpha,t)$, should not be conflated with the off-shell action functional $S[q;t_f,t_i]$ nor the (Dirichlet) on-shell action $S(q_f,t_f;q_i,t_i)$, cf. my Phys.SE answer here.

References:

  1. H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics; Section 10.1 first footnote.

  2. L.D. Landau & E.M. Lifshitz, Mechanics, vol. 1 (1976); $\S$47 footnote on p. 148.

--

$^1$ A complete solution to a 1st-order PDE is not a general solution [1,2], despite the name!

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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