Why or why not? I'm pretty sure that this isn't a Hamiltonian system because it involves a dissipation term, but using the Hamiltonian flow it gives me that the system is Hamiltonian.


I have a curious example :

If I take the hamiltonian $H(p,q) = (p + q)^2$, and apply Hamilton equations : I get :

$$ \dot q = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p} = 2(p + q)$$

$$ \dot p = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial q} = - 2(p + q)$$

So you have :

$$ \dot p = - \dot q$$

So it looks like very much to a dissipative system.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ Trimok I think your example is quite interesting. It's equivalent to a free particle, which you can see by starting with the hamiltonian $H=(p+q)^2/2$ the canonical transformation $p'=p+q, q'=q$ which leads to the hamiltonian $H'=p'^2/2$. I guess the point is that in this case the apparent dependence on $\dot{q}$ is fake, because it is canceled by the $\dot{q}$ dependence in $\dot{p}$ when going back to configuration space. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Dec 25 '13 at 5:51

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.