1
$\begingroup$

I have read in some books and articles that the Dirac-Bergmann procedure to deal with constraints in phase space does not care about holonomic and Non-holonomic constraints, but I've been unable to find a single example. So, I wanted to test that assertion by solving a simple non-holonomic system.

Consider a particle ($m=1$) subject to the non-holonomic constraint $$\phi_{1}=\dot{y}-z\dot{x}=0.\tag{1}$$ The Lagrangian of the system is the standard one $$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2}\right)-V(\mathbf{r}),\tag{2}$$ and it is non-singular as the momentum can be found to be

$$p_{i}=\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}_{i}}=\dot{x}_{i}.$$

In phase-space, the dynamic is given by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(p_{x}^{2}+p_{z}^{2}+p_{z}^{2}\right)+V(\mathbf{r})$$ constrained to obey $\phi_{1}=\dot{p_{y}}-z\dot{p_{z}}=0$. The time evolution is obtained using the Dirac bracket

$$\dot{F}=\left\{ F,H\right\} _{D}=\left\{ F,H\right\} -\sum_{i,j}\left\{ F,\phi_{i}\right\} \left(M_{ij}\right)^{-1}\left\{ \phi_{j},H\right\}, $$ where the Matrix of constraint has the following entries

$$M_{ij}=\left\{ \phi_{i},\phi_{j}\right\}.$$

Now, with only one constraint, the matrix only has one element, and since $\left\{ \phi_{1},\phi_{1}\right\} =0,$ the matrix is non-invertible and there is no Dirac Bracket.

I tried to remedy this in the usual way of the Dirac-Bergmann theory by introducing a second constraint

$$\phi_{2}=\left\{ \phi_{1},H\right\} \approx0$$ But the equations of motion that come from the Dirac bracket do not coincide with the ones from Lagrangian mechanics (analytical mechanics of discrete systems by Rosenberg, p 257).

So, given the above Hamiltonian and the constraint, how can the correct equation of motion be found?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Read in which books and articles? Which pages? $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 23, 2022 at 4:46
  • $\begingroup$ For example, Peter Mann's "Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics" p. 271. It reads "The Dirac bracket can still be constructed for non-holonomic Lagrangian constraints, since the phase space does not depend on the ˙velocity coordinate" $\endgroup$
    – AndresB
    Nov 23, 2022 at 14:07

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

TL;DR: First of all, a constraint in the Dirac-Bergmann analysis of the Hamiltonian formulation cannot depend on velocities/dots. In contrast, OP's constraint (1) depends on velocities/dots.

Longer explanation: Well, there are at least 2 different Lagrangian formulations of non-holonomic constraints, cf. Ref. 1 and this Phys.SE post:

  1. One using a stationary action principle (SAP) but incompatible with d'Alembert's principle (DAP).

  2. One using Chetaev's equations, compatible with DAP but incompatible with SAP.

Since we need SAP to perform a (possible singular) Legendre transform to the Hamiltonian formulation, we will assume option 1.

Let us perform the first steps in the Dirac-Bergmann analysis of OP's example$^1$ (and leave it to the reader to complete it):

$$\begin{align} L~=~&L_0+\lambda\phi_1, \cr L_0 ~=~& \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^2)-V(x,y,z), \cr 0~\approx~&\phi_1~=~\dot{y}-z\dot{x}. \end{align} \tag{A}$$ The Lagrangian momenta are $$\begin{align}p_x~=~&\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}~=~\dot{x}-\lambda z, \cr p_y~=~&\dot{y}+\lambda, \cr p_z~=~&\dot{z}, \cr p_{\lambda}~=~&0. \end{align} \tag{B}$$ There is 1 primary constraint $$0~\approx~\phi_2~=~p_{\lambda}. \tag{C}$$ The original Hamiltonian becomes $$\begin{align} H_0~=~&p_x\dot{x}+p_y\dot{y}+p_z\dot{z}+p_{\lambda}\dot{\lambda}-L\cr ~=~&\frac{1}{2}((p_x+\lambda z)^2+(p_y-\lambda)^2+p_z^2)+V.\end{align} \tag{D}$$ Note that $\lambda$ is not a Lagrange multiplier in the Hamiltonian formulation. There is a secondary constraint $$0~\approx~\phi_3~=~\{H_0,\phi_2\}~=~z(p_x+\lambda z)+\lambda-p_y. \tag{E} $$ There is a tertiary constraint $$0~\approx~\phi_4~=~\{\phi_3,H_0\}~=~(p_x+2\lambda z)p_z -z\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial y}. \tag{F} $$ Here we stopped calculating, but it seems that the Hamiltonian formulation of OP's example becomes overconstrained.

References:

  1. P. Mann, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics, 2018; eqs. (8.2.4) & (8.2.4).

  2. R.M. Rosenberg, Analytical Dynamics of Discrete Systems, 1977; eq. (15.4.5).

--

$^1$ Ref. 2 uses option 2.

$\endgroup$

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.