DOCSLIB.ORG

Classical Hamiltonian Field Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Classical Hamiltonian Field Theory Classical Hamiltonian Field Theory Alex Nelson∗ Email: [email protected] August 26, 2009 Abstract This is a set of notes introducing Hamiltonian field theory, with focus on the scalar field. Contents 1 Lagrangian Field Theory1 2 Hamiltonian Field Theory2 1 Lagrangian Field Theory As with Hamiltonian mechanics, wherein one begins by taking the Legendre transform of the Lagrangian, in Hamiltonian field theory we \transform" the Lagrangian field treatment. So lets review the calculations in Lagrangian field theory. Consider the classical fields φa(t; x¯). We use the index a to indicate which field we are talking about. We should think of x¯ as another index, except it is continuous. We will use the confusing short hand notation φ for the column vector φ1; : : : ; φn. Consider the Lagrangian Z 3 L(φ) = L(φ, @µφ)d x¯ (1.1) all space where L is the Lagrangian density. Hamilton's principle of stationary action is still used to determine the equations of motion from the action Z S[φ] = L(φ, @µφ)dt (1.2) where we find the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for the field d @L @L µ a = a (1.3) dx @(@µφ ) @φ where we note these are evil second order partial differential equations. We also note that we are using Einstein summation convention, so there is an implicit sum over µ but not over a. So that means there are n independent second order partial differential equations we need to solve. But how do we really know these are the correct equations? How do we really know these are the Euler-Lagrange equations for classical fields? We can obtain it directly from the action S by functional differentiation with respect to the field. Taking φ to be a single scalar ∗This is a page from https://pqnelson.github.io/notebk/ Compiled: September 7, 2015 at 10:54am (PST) 1 2 Hamiltonian Field Theory 2 field (for simplicity's sake, it doesn't change anything if we work with n fields), functional differentiation can be defined by δS 1 h i def= lim S φ(y) + εδ(4)(x − y) − S [φ(y)] (1.4) δφ(x) "!0 " where δ(4)(y − x) is the 4-dimensional densitized Dirac delta function. Note that we will (4) (4) often use the shorthand notation δx = δ (y − x). Applying this to the action yields Z δS 1 h (4) (4) i 4 = lim L φ + εδx ;@µφ + "@µδx − L(φ, @µφ) d y (1.5a) δφ(x) "!0 " Z 1 @L (4) @L (4) 2 4 = lim L(φ, @µφ) + δx " + @µδx " + O(" ) − L(φ, @µφ) d y "!0 " @φ @(@µφ) (1.5b) Z @L (4) @L (4) 4 = lim δx + @µδx + O(") d y (1.5c) "!0 @φ @(@µφ) Z @L (4) @L (4) 4 = δx + @µδx d y (1.5d) @φ @(@µφ) Z @L @L (4) 4 = − @µ δx d y (1.5e) @φ @(@µφ) Where we justify the second line by Taylor expanding to first order, then in the third line we factor through by the (1=") factor, in the fourth line we take the limit, and integrate by parts to yield the last line. Note also that we factored out the delta function to make the last line prettier. Now the last line is zero if and only if @L d @L a − µ a = 0 (1.6) @φ dx @(@µφ ) which is precisely the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion! Why are we working with these delta functions? Well, we are working with something a little more than just time. We are working with points in space. Locality means, mathematically, we work with vectors sharing the same base point. Or in the jargon of differential geometry, we are working in the tangent space TpM where M is our manifold, and p 2 M is our base point. If we work with multiple base points at a time, not only is it mathematically not well defined, but it is nonlocal which results in a loss of causality! Needless to say this is bad, so we try to work with the evolution of the field at a specified (but arbitrary) tangent space. If time permits, we will revisit this notion of spatial coordinates as an \index" in the appendix. More precisely, we have the \base space" be the manifold M representing spacetime. We have our fields assign to each point p 2 M some \physical information" φ(x). The question presents itself \Where does this `information' live?" It lives in a generalization of the tangent space, called the “fiber". In the Lagrangian setting, we work with ordered pairs (xµ; φ(xµ)) which is actually something called the \section" of the fiber bundle. That is, the field is a mapping φ : M ! M × F (1.7) where F is \where" the fields \live", i.e. it's the fiber. 2 Hamiltonian Field Theory If we want to begin the canonical treatment of fields, we need to start by finding the canonically conjugate momenta. We need to first \foliate" spacetime into space and time. Why do we do this? Well, we are concerned about the time derivatives of the field (how it changes in time), and we need to foliate spacetime into constant-time surfaces to have this be meaningful in the obvious way. 2 Hamiltonian Field Theory 3 Let φ be a (column) vector of scalar fields. So to find the canonically conjugate momenta to φa, we follow our nose to find @L Πa = a : (2.1) @(@0φ ) We will write Π for the row vector Π = (Π1; Π2;:::; Πn). If the mapping (φ, @0φ, @1φ, @2φ, @3φ) 7! (Π; φ, @1φ, @2φ, @3φ) (2.2) is invertible (bijective, but when wouldn't it be?1), then we define the Hamiltonian density function by H(Π; φ, @1φ, @2φ, @3φ) = Π · @0φ − L (2.3) which is a generalization of the Legendre transformation. By direct computation we can find Hamilton's equations to be @H @H d @H _a _ φ = ; and Πa = − a + m m (2.4) @Πa @φ dx @(@mφ ) where the equation on the right hand side has an implicit sum over m = 1; 2; 3. These equations naturally folow from Hamilton's principle applied to Z 4 S = (Π · @0φ − H)d x (2.5) the action in canonical form. Example 2.1. (Working in the East coast convention − + ++) Consider the Lagrangian density 2 1 µ µ 2 L = @ φ∂µφ + φ (2.6) 2 2 where µ is some \mass" scalar. We find the equations of motion being δS @L @L = 0 ) − @µ = 0: (2.7) δφ @φ @(@µφ) We find by direct computation @L = +µ2φ (2.8a) @φ @L µ 2 @µ = @µ (@ φ) = @ φ (2.8b) @(@µφ) which yields the equations of motion to be µ 2 @ @µ + µ φ = 0: (2.9) This is precisely the Klein-Gordon equation! We find that the canonically conjugate momenta is @L 0 Π = = @ φ = −@0φ. (2.10) @(@0φ) Thus we can find the Hamiltonian density to be H = Π · @0φ − L (2.11a) 2 0 1 µ µ 2 = −@ φ∂0φ − @ φ∂µφ + φ (2.11b) 2 2 2 −1 0 1 µ 2 = @ φ∂0φ − r~ φ · r~ φ − φ (2.11c) 2 2 2 1 = − Π · Π + r~ φ · r~ φ + µ2φ2 (2.11d) 2 Note our convention makes the sign of the µ2 term different than what is conventionally used in most particle physics texts. Because of this choice of signature convention, our energy is negative. 1The condition of this being invertible is equivalent to Henneaux and Teiteilboim's criteria of \regularity" it seems... 2 Hamiltonian Field Theory 4 We can find Hamilton's equations for the Klein Gordon scalar field quite easily. One we already found accidentally, it is @L 0 Π = = @ φ = −@0φ. (2.12) @(@0φ) The other is more interesting, it is @H d @H Π_ = − + (2.13a) m @φ dx @(@mφ) 2 m = −µ φ − @m(@ φ) (2.13b) = −(µ2 + r2)φ (2.13c) Note that the sign of our results differs from what we derived due to our choice of signature convention! Now the Hamiltonian approach to fields, as previously mentioned, is slightly diffferent because we work with a one-parameter family of spatial hypersurfaces instead of spacetime. To consider the scalar field φ(x) in this setting, we let it become φ(x¯; t) where we use the semicolon to remind ourselves that we are working with \some parameter" t. We obtain the Hamiltonian simply by integrating the density over all space Z 3 H(Π; φ) = H(Π; φ, @1φ, @2φ, @3φ)d x:¯ (2.14) all space We need to consider how the functional derivative behaves under this change from spacetime to \space plus time". The functional derivative with respect to φ(¯x; t) is δA[φ(¯y; t)] 1 (3) = lim A[φt + δx¯ ] − A[φt] (2.15) δφ(¯x; t) "!0 " (3) (3) where φt(¯y) = φ(¯y; t) = φt, and δx¯ = δ (¯x − y¯). We obtain the equations of motion from the principle of stationary action applied to the canonical form of the action. The Euler-Lagrange equations encoded in the canonical formalism are @H @H d @H _a _ φ = ; and Πa = − a + m m (2.16) @Πa @φ dx @(@mφ ) as we previously mentioned. We can directly compute that δH Z δH = d4y (2.17a) δφ(¯x; t) δφ(¯x; t) Z 1 h (3) (3) i 3 = lim H(Π; φt + εδx¯ ;@kφt + "@kδx¯ ) − H(Π; φt;@mφt) d y¯ (2.17b) "!0 " Z 1 @H (3) @H (3) = lim H(Π; φt;@mφt) + " δx¯ + " @mδx¯ (2.17c) "!0 " @φ @(@mφ) 2 3 + O(" ) − H(Π; φt;@mφt) d y¯ Z @H (3) @H (3) 3 = δx¯ + @mδx¯ d y¯ (2.17d) @φ @(@mφ) Z @H @H (3) 3 = − @m δx¯ d y¯ (2.17e) @φ @(@mφ) Z @H @H (3) 3 = − − + @m δx¯ d y¯ (2.17f) @φ @(@mφ) Z _ (3) 3 = − Πδx¯ d y¯ (2.17g) = −Π(_ x): (2.17h) References 5 This is precisely one of Hamilton's equations, and by similar reasoning we find δH δH _ φ = ; and Π_ t(¯x) = − (2.18) δΠt(¯x) δφt(¯x) are both generalizations of Hamilton's equations to field theoretic setting.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Covariant Hamiltonian Field Theory 3
    December 16, 2020 2:58 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE kfte COVARIANT HAMILTONIAN FIELD THEORY JURGEN¨ STRUCKMEIER and ANDREAS REDELBACH GSI Helmholtzzentrum f¨ur Schwerionenforschung GmbH Planckstr. 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany and Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit¨at Frankfurt am Main Max-von-Laue-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected] Received 18 July 2007 Revised 14 December 2020 A consistent, local coordinate formulation of covariant Hamiltonian field theory is pre- sented. Whereas the covariant canonical field equations are equivalent to the Euler- Lagrange field equations, the covariant canonical transformation theory offers more gen- eral means for defining mappings that preserve the form of the field equations than the usual Lagrangian description. It is proved that Poisson brackets, Lagrange brackets, and canonical 2-forms exist that are invariant under canonical transformations of the fields. The technique to derive transformation rules for the fields from generating functions is demonstrated by means of various examples. In particular, it is shown that the infinites- imal canonical transformation furnishes the most general form of Noether’s theorem. We furthermore specify the generating function of an infinitesimal space-time step that conforms to the field equations. Keywords: Field theory; Hamiltonian density; covariant. PACS numbers: 11.10.Ef, 11.15Kc arXiv:0811.0508v6 [math-ph] 15 Dec 2020 1. Introduction Relativistic field theories and gauge theories are commonly formulated on the basis of a Lagrangian density L1,2,3,4. The space-time evolution of the fields is obtained by integrating the Euler-Lagrange field equations that follow from the four-dimensional representation of Hamilton’s action principle.
    [Show full text]
  • Branched Hamiltonians and Supersymmetry
    Branched Hamiltonians and Supersymmetry Thomas Curtright, University of Miami Wigner 111 seminar, 12 November 2013 Some examples of branched Hamiltonians are explored, as recently advo- cated by Shapere and Wilczek. These are actually cases of switchback poten- tials, albeit in momentum space, as previously analyzed for quasi-Hamiltonian dynamical systems in a classical context. A basic model, with a pair of Hamiltonian branches related by supersymmetry, is considered as an inter- esting illustration, and as stimulation. “It is quite possible ... we may discover that in nature the relation of past and future is so intimate ... that no simple representation of a present may exist.” – R P Feynman Based on work with Cosmas Zachos, Argonne National Laboratory Introduction to the problem In quantum mechanics H = p2 + V (x) (1) is neither more nor less difficult than H = x2 + V (p) (2) by reason of x, p duality, i.e. the Fourier transform: ψ (x) φ (p) ⎫ ⎧ x ⎪ ⎪ +i∂/∂p ⎪ ⇐⇒ ⎪ ⎬⎪ ⎨⎪ i∂/∂x p − ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭⎪ ⎩⎪ This equivalence of (1) and (2) is manifest in the QMPS formalism, as initiated by Wigner (1932), 1 2ipy/ f (x, p)= dy x + y ρ x y e− π | | − 1 = dk p + k ρ p k e2ixk/ π | | − where x and p are on an equal footing, and where even more general H (x, p) can be considered. See CZ to follow, and other talks at this conference. Or even better, in addition to the excellent books cited at the conclusion of Professor Schleich’s talk yesterday morning, please see our new book on the subject ... Even in classical Hamiltonian mechanics, (1) and (2) are equivalent under a classical canonical transformation on phase space: (x, p) (p, x) ⇐⇒ − But upon transitioning to Lagrangian mechanics, the equivalence between the two theories becomes obscure.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Bound States and Scattering Processes Using Hamiltonian Renormalization Group Procedure for Effective Particles in Quantum field Theory
    Description of bound states and scattering processes using Hamiltonian renormalization group procedure for effective particles in quantum field theory Marek Wi˛eckowski June 2005 Doctoral thesis Advisor: Professor Stanisław D. Głazek Warsaw University Department of Physics Institute of Theoretical Physics Warsaw 2005 i Acknowledgments I am most grateful to my advisor, Professor Stanisław Głazek, for his invaluable advice and assistance during my work on this thesis. I would also like to thank Tomasz Masłowski for allowing me to use parts of our paper here. My heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Nick Ukiah, who supported and encouraged me during the writing of this thesis and who helped me in editing the final manuscript in English. Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my grandmother, who has been a great support to me during the last few years. MAREK WI ˛ECKOWSKI,DESCRIPTION OF BOUND STATES AND SCATTERING... ii MAREK WI ˛ECKOWSKI,DESCRIPTION OF BOUND STATES AND SCATTERING... iii Abstract This thesis presents examples of a perturbative construction of Hamiltonians Hλ for effective particles in quantum field theory (QFT) on the light front. These Hamiltonians (1) have a well-defined (ultraviolet-finite) eigenvalue problem for bound states of relativistic constituent fermions, and (2) lead (in a scalar theory with asymptotic freedom in perturbation theory in third and partly fourth order) to an ultraviolet-finite and covariant scattering matrix, as the Feynman diagrams do. λ is a parameter of the renormalization group for Hamiltonians and qualitatively means the inverse of the size of the effective particles. The same procedure of calculating the operator Hλ applies in description of bound states and scattering.
    [Show full text]
  • Turbulence, Entropy and Dynamics
    TURBULENCE, ENTROPY AND DYNAMICS Lecture Notes, UPC 2014 Jose M. Redondo Contents 1 Turbulence 1 1.1 Features ................................................ 2 1.2 Examples of turbulence ........................................ 3 1.3 Heat and momentum transfer ..................................... 4 1.4 Kolmogorov’s theory of 1941 ..................................... 4 1.5 See also ................................................ 6 1.6 References and notes ......................................... 6 1.7 Further reading ............................................ 7 1.7.1 General ............................................ 7 1.7.2 Original scientific research papers and classic monographs .................. 7 1.8 External links ............................................. 7 2 Turbulence modeling 8 2.1 Closure problem ............................................ 8 2.2 Eddy viscosity ............................................. 8 2.3 Prandtl’s mixing-length concept .................................... 8 2.4 Smagorinsky model for the sub-grid scale eddy viscosity ....................... 8 2.5 Spalart–Allmaras, k–ε and k–ω models ................................ 9 2.6 Common models ........................................... 9 2.7 References ............................................... 9 2.7.1 Notes ............................................. 9 2.7.2 Other ............................................. 9 3 Reynolds stress equation model 10 3.1 Production term ............................................ 10 3.2 Pressure-strain interactions
    [Show full text]
  • BRST APPROACH to HAMILTONIAN SYSTEMS Our Starting Point Is the Partition Function
    BRST APPROACH TO HAMILTONIAN SYSTEMS A.K.Aringazin1, V.V.Arkhipov2, and A.S.Kudusov3 Department of Theoretical Physics Karaganda State University Karaganda 470074 Kazakstan Preprint KSU-DTP-10/96 Abstract BRST formulation of cohomological Hamiltonian mechanics is presented. In the path integral approach, we use the BRST gauge fixing procedure for the partition func- tion with trivial underlying Lagrangian to fix symplectic diffeomorphism invariance. Resulting Lagrangian is BRST and anti-BRST exact and the Liouvillian of classical mechanics is reproduced in the ghost-free sector. The theory can be thought of as a topological phase of Hamiltonian mechanics and is considered as one-dimensional cohomological field theory with the target space a symplectic manifold. Twisted (anti- )BRST symmetry is related to global N = 2 supersymmetry, which is identified with an exterior algebra. Landau-Ginzburg formulation of the associated d = 1, N = 2 model is presented and Slavnov identity is analyzed. We study deformations and per- turbations of the theory. Physical states of the theory and correlation functions of the BRST invariant observables are studied. This approach provides a powerful tool to investigate the properties of Hamiltonian systems. PACS number(s): 02.40.+m, 03.40.-t,03.65.Db, 11.10.Ef, 11.30.Pb. arXiv:hep-th/9811026v1 2 Nov 1998 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 1 1 INTRODUCTION Recently, path integral approach to classical mechanics has been developed by Gozzi, Reuter and Thacker in a series of papers[1]-[10]. They used a delta function constraint on phase space variables to satisfy Hamilton’s equation and a sort of Faddeev-Popov representation.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Quantum Field Theory
    ADVANCES IN QUANTUM FIELD THEORY Edited by Sergey Ketov Advances in Quantum Field Theory Edited by Sergey Ketov Published by InTech Janeza Trdine 9, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia Copyright © 2012 InTech All chapters are Open Access distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. After this work has been published by InTech, authors have the right to republish it, in whole or part, in any publication of which they are the author, and to make other personal use of the work. Any republication, referencing or personal use of the work must explicitly identify the original source. As for readers, this license allows users to download, copy and build upon published chapters even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. Notice Statements and opinions expressed in the chapters are these of the individual contributors and not necessarily those of the editors or publisher. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the published chapters. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any damage or injury to persons or property arising out of the use of any materials, instructions, methods or ideas contained in the book. Publishing Process Manager Romana Vukelic Technical Editor Teodora Smiljanic Cover Designer InTech Design Team First published February, 2012 Printed in Croatia A free online edition of this book is available at www.intechopen.com Additional hard copies can be obtained from [email protected] Advances in Quantum Field Theory, Edited by Sergey Ketov p.
    [Show full text]
  • Antibrackets and Supersymmetric Mechanics
    Preprint JINR E2-93-225 Antibrackets and Supersymmetric Mechanics Armen Nersessian 1 Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR Dubna, Head Post Office, P.O.Box 79, 101 000 Moscow, Russia Abstract Using odd symplectic structure constructed over tangent bundle of the symplec- tic manifold, we construct the simple supergeneralization of an arbitrary Hamilto- arXiv:hep-th/9306111v2 29 Jul 1993 nian mechanics on it. In the case, if the initial mechanics defines Killing vector of some Riemannian metric, corresponding supersymmetric mechanics can be refor- mulated in the terms of even symplectic structure on the supermanifold. 1E-MAIL:[email protected] 1 Introduction It is well-known that on supermanifolds M the Poisson brackets of two types can be defined – even and odd ones, in correspondence with their Grassmannian grading 1. That is defined by the expression ∂ f ∂ g {f,g} = r ΩAB(z) l , (1.1) κ ∂zA κ ∂zB which satisfies the conditions p({f,g}κ)= p(f)+ p(g) + 1 (grading condition), (p(f)+κ)(p(g)+κ) {f,g}κ = −(−1) {g, f}κ (”antisymmetrisity”), (1.2) (p(f)+κ)(p(h)+κ) (−1) {f, {g, h}1}1 + cycl.perm.(f, g, h) = 0 (Jacobi id.), (1.3) l A ∂r ∂ where z are the local coordinates on M, ∂zA and ∂zA denote correspondingly the right and the left derivatives, κ = 0, 1 denote correspondingly the even and the odd Poisson brackets. Obviously, the even Poisson brackets can be nondegenerate only if dimM = (2N.M), and the odd one if dimM =(N.N). With nondegenerate Poisson bracket one can associate the symplectic structure A B Ωκ = dz Ω(κ)ABdz , (1.4) BC C where Ω(κ)AB Ωκ = δA .
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Order Geometric Theory of Information and Heat Based On
    Article Higher Order Geometric Theory of Information and Heat Based on Poly-Symplectic Geometry of Souriau Lie Groups Thermodynamics and Their Contextures: The Bedrock for Lie Group Machine Learning Frédéric Barbaresco Department of Advanced Radar Concepts, Thales Land Air Systems, Voie Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, 91470 Limours, France; [email protected] Received: 9 August 2018; Accepted: 9 October; Published: 2 November 2018 Abstract: We introduce poly-symplectic extension of Souriau Lie groups thermodynamics based on higher-order model of statistical physics introduced by Ingarden. This extended model could be used for small data analytics and machine learning on Lie groups. Souriau geometric theory of heat is well adapted to describe density of probability (maximum entropy Gibbs density) of data living on groups or on homogeneous manifolds. For small data analytics (rarified gases, sparse statistical surveys, …), the density of maximum entropy should consider higher order moments constraints (Gibbs density is not only defined by first moment but fluctuations request 2nd order and higher moments) as introduced by Ingarden. We use a poly-sympletic model introduced by Christian Günther, replacing the symplectic form by a vector-valued form. The poly-symplectic approach generalizes the Noether theorem, the existence of moment mappings, the Lie algebra structure of the space of currents, the (non-)equivariant cohomology and the classification of G-homogeneous systems. The formalism is covariant, i.e., no special coordinates or coordinate systems on the parameter space are used to construct the Hamiltonian equations. We underline the contextures of these models, and the process to build these generic structures. We also introduce a more synthetic Koszul definition of Fisher Metric, based on the Souriau model, that we name Souriau-Fisher metric.
    [Show full text]
  • 15. Hamiltonian Mechanics Gerhard Müller University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Creative Commons License
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Classical Dynamics Physics Course Materials 2015 15. Hamiltonian Mechanics Gerhard Müller University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/classical_dynamics Abstract Part fifteen of course materials for Classical Dynamics (Physics 520), taught by Gerhard Müller at the University of Rhode Island. Documents will be updated periodically as more entries become presentable. Recommended Citation Müller, Gerhard, "15. Hamiltonian Mechanics" (2015). Classical Dynamics. Paper 7. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/classical_dynamics/7 This Course Material is brought to you for free and open access by the Physics Course Materials at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Classical Dynamics by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Contents of this Document [mtc15] 15. Hamiltonian Mechanics • Legendre transform [tln77] • Hamiltonian and canonical equations [mln82] • Lagrangian from Hamiltonian via Legendre transform [mex188] • Can you find the Hamiltonian of this system? [mex189] • Variational principle in phase space [mln83] • Properties of the Hamiltonian [mln87] • When does the Hamiltonian represent the total energy? [mex81] • Hamiltonian: conserved quantity or total energy? [mex77] • Bead sliding on rotating rod in vertical plane [mex78] • Use of cyclic coordinates in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics [mln84] • Velocity-dependent potential energy [mln85] • Charged particle in electromagnetic field [mln86] • Velocity-dependent central force [mex76] • Charged particle in a uniform magnetic field [mex190] • Particle with position-dependent mass moving in 1D potential [mex88] • Pendulum with string of slowly increasing length [mex89] • Librations between inclines [mex259] Legendre transform [tln77] Given is a function f(x) with monotonic derivative f 0(x).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1808.08689V3
    Hamiltonian Nature of Monopole Dynamics J. M. Heningera, P. J. Morrisona aDepartment of Physics and Institute for Fusion Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA Abstract Classical electromagnetism with magnetic monopoles is not a Hamiltonian field theory because the Jacobi identity for the Poisson bracket fails. The Jacobi identity is recovered only if all of the species have the same ratio of electric to magnetic charge or if an electron and a monopole can never collide. Without the Jacobi identity, there are no local canonical coordinates or Lagrangian action principle. To build a quantum field of magnetic monopoles, we either must explain why the positions of electrons and monopoles can never coincide or we must resort to new quantization techniques. 1. Introduction This letter considers the classical gauge-free theory of electromagnetic fields interacting with electrically and magnetically charged matter as a Hamiltonian field theory. We begin with a brief history of magnetic monopoles and then describe why monopole theories are not Hamiltonian field theories. The modern theory of magnetic monopoles was developed by Dirac [1, 2]. He showed that an electron in the magnetic field of a monopole is equivalent to an electron whose wave function is zero along a semi-infinite ‘string’ extending from the location of the monopole. Along this string, the electromagnetic vector potential is undefined. The phase of the electron is no longer single valued along a loop encircling the Dirac string. In order for observables to be single valued, the phase shift must be an integer multiple of 2π, so the electric and magnetic charge must be quantized.
    [Show full text]
  • (Limited Distribution) International Atomic Energy Agency And
    IC/91/51 ;E INTERNAL REPORT REI (Limited Distribution) International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS N=2, D=4 SUPERSYMMETRIC er-MODELS AND HAMILTONIAN MECHANICS * A. Galperin The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom and V. Ogievetsky ** International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. ABSTRACT A deep similarity is established between the Hamiltonian mechanics of point particle and supersymmetric N - 2, D = 4 cx-models formulated within harmonic superspace. An essential pan of the latter, the sphere S2, comes out as a couterpart of the time variable. MIRAMARE - TRIESTE May 1991 * To be submitted for publication. Also appeared as IMPERIAIVTP/9O-91/15. ** Permanent address: Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Head Post Office P.O. Box 79,101000 Moscow, USSR. 1 Introduction It is well known that customary a-models, i.e. two-derivative self-couplings of scalar fields A m SN=0 = \ j<?x 9AB(4>) dm<t> d <f>» (1) have a profound relationship with Ritmannian geometry, gA.B(<f>) being in- terpreted as the metric tensor. In our language these are N = 0 a models. Adding fermions and requiring supersymmetry leads to restrictions on the metric that have been understood as the existence of complex structures on the target manifolds. For instance, the target manifold of the N = 1 su- persymmetric <7-models in four dimensions should be Kahler (one complex structure) [lj, while for N = 2 supersymmetric a-models it is hyperKahler (three complex structures) [2].
    [Show full text]
  • ℤ2×ℤ2-Graded Mechanics
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Nuclear Physics B 967 (2021) 115426 www.elsevier.com/locate/nuclphysb Z2 × Z2-graded mechanics: The quantization ∗ N. Aizawa a, Z. Kuznetsova b, F. Toppan c, a Department of Physical Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Osaka Prefecture University, Nakamozu Campus, Sakai, Osaka 599-8531 Japan b UFABC, Av. dos Estados 5001, Bangu, CEP 09210-580, Santo André (SP), Brazil c CBPF, Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud 150, Urca, CEP 22290-180, Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil Received 10 December 2020; received in revised form 23 March 2021; accepted 25 April 2021 Available online 28 April 2021 Editor: Hubert Saleur Abstract In a previous paper we introduced the notion of Z2 × Z2-graded classical mechanics and presented a general framework to construct, in the Lagrangian setting, the worldline sigma models invariant under a Z2 × Z2-graded superalgebra. In this work we discuss at first the classical Hamiltonian formulation for a class of these models and later present their canonical quantization. As the simplest application of the construction we recover the Z2 × Z2-graded quantum Hamiltonian in- troduced by Bruce and Duplij. We prove that this is just the first example of a large class of Z2 × Z2-graded quantum models. We derive in particular interacting multiparticle quantum Hamiltonians given by Hermi- tian, matrix, differential operators. The interacting terms appear as non-diagonal entries in the matrices. The construction of the Noether charges, both classical and quantum, is presented. A comprehensive discussion of the different Z2 × Z2-graded symmetries possessed by the quantum Hamiltonians is given.
    [Show full text]