Mechanics

Physics 151
Lecture 19
Hamiltonian Equations of Motion
(Chapter 8)
What We Did Last Time
Constructed Hamiltonian formalism
Equivalent to Lagrangian formalism
Simpler, but twice as many, equations
Hamiltonian is conserved (unless explicitly t-dependent)
Equals to total energy (unless it isnt)
( , , ) ( , , )
i i
H q p t q p L q q t =

i
i
H
q
p

i
i
H
p
q

H L
t t

=

Hamiltons Principle
Lagranges equations were derived from
How does it work in Hamiltonian formalism?
First, lets remember how this worked before
Consider the path q = q(t) and define variation by
2
1
0
t
t
I Ldt =

Hamiltons Principle
( , ) ( ) ( ) q t q t t +
2
1
( ) ( ( , ), ( , ), )
t
t
I f q t q t t dt

0
( ) dI
I d
d

Hamiltons Principle
A bit of work shows
So I = 0 is equivalent to
( , ) ( ) ( ) q t q t t +
2
1
( ) ( ( , ), ( , ), )
t
t
I f q t q t t dt

0
( ) dI
I d
d

2
2
1
1
0
( )
( ) ( )
t
t
t
t
dI f d f f
t dt t
d dq dt q q

=



= +

=0 at t
1
, t
2
0
f d f
dq dt q

=

Lagranges equations
Hamiltons Principle
Rewrite action integral using Hamiltonian
Now denotes variation in the phase space
i.e. both q
i
(t) and p
i
(t) are varied independently
Calculation of I goes exactly the same way
J ust consider 2n variables q
i
and p
i
instead of q
i
only
( )
2 2
1 1
( , , )
t t
i i
t t
I Ldt p q H q p t dt =


( , ) ( ) ( )
i i i
q t q t t + ( , ) ( ) ( )
i i i
p t p t t +
( , , , , ) ( , , )
i i
f q q p t p q p H q p t =

This can be omitted
Hamiltons Principle
I = 0 is equivalent to
Well, that was easy
One subtlety remains the end points
0
i i
f d f
dq dt q


=

0
i i
f d f
dp dt p


=

and
( , , , ) ( , , )
i i
f q q p t p q H q p t =

0
i
i
H
p
dq

+ =

0
i
i
H
q
dp

Hamiltons
equations
End Point Constraints
Variation in Lagrangian formalism required
Derivation of Hamiltons equations requires
Or does it?
What we really need is
But f does not depend
on !
So we need only
1 2
( ) ( ) 0 q t q t = =
The end points are fixed in the config space
1 1 2 2
( ) ( ) 0 ( ) ( ) q t q t p t p t = = = = More restrictive
2 2
1 1
( ) ( ) 0
t t
t t
f f
t t
q p


+ =




( , , , ) ( , , )
i i
f q q p t p q H q p t =

p

This is 0 This doesnt

have to be 0
1 2
( ) ( ) 0 q t q t = = as before
End Point Constraints
We may still want torequire
Keeps q and p symmetric
Adds flexibility to the definition of the action integral
You can add time-derivative of any function F(q, p, t)
Difference would be
1 2 1 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 q t q t p t p t = = = =
2
1
( , ,
, )
)
( ,
t
i i
t
dF q p t
dt
I p q H q p t dt

+

[ ]
2
2
1
1
( , , )
( ( ), ( ), )
t
t
t
t
dF q p t
dt F q t p t t
dt
=

=0
End Point Constraints
Choose for example
This is no longer the Lagrangian
Action integral can be defined without referring to L
This allows a larger set of coordinate transformation
canonical transformation for Hamiltonian formalism
Will do this next time, but lets take a sneak peek
2
1
( , ,
, )
)
( ,
t
i i
t
dF q p t
dt
I p q H q p t dt

+

i i
F q p =
i i i i
dF
q p q p
dt
=

( )
2
1
( , , )
t
i i
t
I p q H q p t dt

Canonical Transformation
LagrangianHamiltonianformalism meant moving
from the configuration spaceto the phase space
Lagrangianformalism is invariant under coordinate
transformations such as
Is Hamiltonianformalism invariant under similar but more
general transformations?
1
( , , )
n
q q
1 1
( , , , , , )
n n
q q p p
1
( , , , )
i i n
Q Q q q t =
1 1
1 1
( , , , , , , )
( , , , , , , )
i i n n
i i n n
Q Q q q p p t
P P q q p p t
=
=


Canonical Transformation
Well, no. Its much too general, but
There is a subset of such transformations canonical
transformations that work
We will find the rules
Hamiltonian formalism is more forgiving
Goal: Find the transformation that makes the problem easiest
to solve
We may make coordinates cyclic, as we did by using
polar coordinates in the central-force problem
1 1
( , , , , , , )
i i n n
Q Q q q p p t =
1 1
( , , , , , , )
i i n n
P P q q p p t =
Principle of Least Action
Principle of Least Action is a confusing term
Action changed its meaning historically
I would rather call Hamiltons principle as
the principle of least action
Least is not strictly true Extreme would be the right word
Lets follow Goldsteins usage for today
Principle of least action is expressed as
2
1
0
t
i i
t
p q dt =

action
-variation
What are they?
-Variation
In -variation, end points are fixed in space and time
What if we allowed time to vary?
We make a physical system to move from one state to
another, but allow it to take as much time as it wants
This requires a different kind of variation
q(t, ) does not have to be q(t, 0) at t = t
1
, t
2
It may take extra time, e.g. q(t
2
+ t
2
, ) = q(t
2
, 0)
How can we define such variation?
-Variation
Vary the path in the config space
This time, we do not fix the end points
i.e.
Whats more, we vary the range of integration
We define the -variation by
( , ) ( ) ( )
i i i
q t q t t +
1 2
( ) 0, ( ) 0
i i
t t
1 1 1 2 2 2
, t t t t t t + +
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
( ) (0)
t t t t
t t t t
Ldt L dt L dt
+
+
=

Less restrictive form
than what we need
-Variation
In the configuration space
End points of integration
move by
1
st
-order approximation
Same for t
2
We will later impose
( ) q t
1
t
2
t
1 1
t t +
2 2
t t +
( ) ( ) q t q t +
1 1 1 1
( ) ( , ) ( )
i i i
q t q t t q t = +
1 1 1 1
( ) ( ) ( )
i i i
q t q t t q t = +

1 2
( ) ( ) 0
i i
q t q t = =
These points will
be the same
-Variation
Considering only 1
st
-order terms of t and (t)
Last 2 terms are -variation with free end points
Assume Lagranges equation
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
( ) (0)
t t t t
t t t t
Ldt L dt L dt
+
+
=

2 2 2
1 1 1
2 2 1 1
( ) ( ) ( ) (0)
t t t
t t t
Ldt L t t L t t L dt L dt = +

2
2 2
1 1
1
t
t t
i i
t t
i i i
t
L d L L
Ldt q dt q
dq dt q q





= +









[ ]
2
2
1
1
t
t
i i
t
t
Ldt L t p q = +

[ ]
2
2
1
1
t
t
i i
t
t
Ldt p q =

-Variation
Using
( ) q t
1
t
2
t
1 1
t t +
2 2
t t +
( ) ( ) q t q t +
1 1 1 1
( ) ( ) ( )
i i i
q t q t t q t = +

2 2 2 2
( ) ( ) ( )
i i i
q t q t t q t = +

[ ]
2
2
1
1
t
t
i i
t
t
Ldt L t p q = +

[ ]
[ ]
2
2
1
1
2
1
t
t
i i i i
t
t
t
i i
t
Ldt L t p q t p q
p q H t
= +
=

This is a very general form
Now we examine a more restrictive case
Restricted Variation
We impose three conditions
q
i
= 0 at t = t
1
, t
2
H is conserved H does not explicitly depend on t
Varied paths are restricted so that H is constant
Last two are basically energy conservation
-variation is now
Initial and final states are fixed
[ ]
2
2
1
1
2 1
( )
t
t
i i
t
t
Ldt p q H t H t t = =

Principle of Least Action

From the definition of Hamiltonian
Comparing the two equations
2 2 2
1 1 1
2 1
( ) ( )
t t t
i i i i
t t t
Ldt p q H dt p q dt H t t = =


2
1
2 1
( )
t
t
Ldt H t t =

2
1
0
t
i i
t
p q dt =

Principle of Least Action
A conservative system takes a path that minimizes the integral
2
1
i i
p q dt

Principle of Least Action
Now, what is ?
Lets consider a simple example
A particle under conservative potential
Principle of least action is equivalent to
The particle tries to move from point 1 to point 2 with
minimum kinetic energy time
As slowly as possible, yet spending as little time as
possible
2
1
i i
p q dt

2
( )
2
m
L V = v x
2
2
i i
p q m T = = v

2
1
0
t
t
Tdt =

Principle of Ideal Commuting?

Principle of Least Action
For a free particle, kinetic energy T is constant
This also means that a free particle takes the shortest path =
straight line between point 1 and point 2
Similar to Fermats principle in optics
Light travels the fastest path between two points
2
1
2 1
( ) 0
t
t
Tdt T t t = =

Principle of Least Time

Summary
Hamiltons Principle in the Hamiltonian formalism
Derivation was simple
Additional end-point constraints
Not strictly needed, but adds flexibility to the definition
of the action integral
Principle of Least Action
-derivative allows change of time
For simple systems, equivalent to
1 2 1 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 q t q t p t p t = = = =
( )
2
1
( , , ) 0
t
i i
t
I p q H q p t dt =

2
1
0
t
i i
t
p q dt =

2
1
0
t
t
Tdt =