Thursday, September 18, 2014

lagrangian formalism - Constraints of relativistic point particle in Hamiltonian mechanics


I try to understand constructing of Hamiltonian mechanics with constraints. I decided to start with the simple case: free relativistic particle. I've constructed hamiltonian with constraint:


S=mdτ˙xν˙xν.


Here ϕ=pμpμm2=0 first class constraint.


Then H=H0+λϕ=λϕ.



So, I want to show that I can obtain from this Hamiltonian the same equation of motion, as obtained from Lagrangian.


But the problem is that I'm not sure what to do with λ=λ(q,p). I tried the following thing:


˙xμ={xμ,λϕ}={xμ,λp2}m2{xμ,λ}=λ{xμ,p2}+p2{xμ,λ}m2{xμ,λ}

=2λημbpb+p2{xμ,λ}m2{xμ,λ}=2λημbpb+p2λpμm2λpμ,


˙λ={λ,λϕ}={λ,λp2}m2{λ,λ}=λ{λ,p2}+p2{λ,p2}=2ληakpaλxk,


˙pμ={pμ,λp2m2λ}=p2{pμ,λ}m2{pμ,λ}=p2λxμ+m2λxμ.


If we recall that p2m2=0, then we get from the third equation: ˙p=0, and from the first: ˙xμ=2ληakpa.


So we have




  1. ˙xμ=2λημbpb.





  2. ˙λ=2ληakpaλxk.




  3. ˙p=0.




But I don't know what to do next. Can you help me?



Answer




Hints to the question (v1):




  1. We cannot resist the temptation to generalize the background spacetime metric from the Minkowski metric ημν to a general curved spacetime metric gμν(x). We use the sign convention (,+,+,+).




  2. Let us parametrize the point particle by an arbitrary world-line parameter τ (which does not have to be the proper time).




  3. The Lagrange multiplier λ=λ(τ) (which OP mentions) depends on τ, but it does not depend on the canonical variables xμ and pμ. Similarly, xμ and pμ depend only on τ.





  4. The Lagrange multiplier λ=e2 can be identified with an einbein1 field e. See below where we outline a simple way to understand the appearance of the on-shell constraint p2+m2  0,p2 := gμν(x) pμpν < 0.




  5. Start with the following square root Lagrangian for a massive relativistic point particle L0 := m˙x2,˙x2 := gμν(x) ˙xμ˙xν < 0,

    where dot means differentiation wrt. the world-line parameter τ. Here the action is S0=dτ L0. The stationary paths includes the geodesics. More precisely, the Euler-Lagrange equations are the geodesics equations.




  6. Introduce an einbein field e=e(τ), and Lagrangian L := ˙x22eem22.

    Contrary to the square root Lagrangian (2), this Lagrangian (3) also makes sense for massless point particles, cf. this Phys.SE post.





  7. Show that the Lagrangian momenta are pμ = 1egμν(x) ˙xν.




  8. Show that the Euler-Lagrange equations of the Lagrangian (3) are ˙pλ  12eλgμν(x) ˙xμ˙xν,˙x2+(em)2  0.




  9. Show that the Lagrangian (3) reduces to the square root Lagrangian (2) when integrating out the einbein field e > 0.

    The inequality (6) is imposed to remove an unphysical negative branch, cf. my Phys.SE answer here.2





  10. Perform a (singular) Legendre transformation3 of the Lagrangian (3), and show that the corresponding Hamiltonian becomes H = e2(p2+m2).

    This Hamiltonian (7) is precisely of the form Lagrange multiplier times constraint (1).




  11. Show that Hamilton's equations are precisely eqs. (4) and (5).




  12. The arbitrariness in the choice of the world-line parameter τ leads to reparametrization symmetry4 τ = f(τ),dτ = dτdfdτ,˙xμ = ˙xμdfdτ,e = edfdτ,

    pμ = pμ,L = Ldfdτ,H = HdfdτS = S,
    where f=f(τ) is a bijective function.




  13. Thus one may choose various gauges, e.g. e=const.





References:



  1. J. Polchinski, String Theory, Vol. 1, Section 1.2.


--


Footnotes:


1 An einbein is a 1D version of a vielbein.


2 As a consistency check of the sign (6), if we in the static gauge ix0M = x0E = τE = iτM

Wick rotate from Minkowski to Euclidean space, then in eq. (3), the Euclidean Lagrangian LE=LM>0 becomes positive as it should.



3 Strictly speaking, in the singular Legendre transformation, one should also introduce a momentum pe := L˙e = 0

for the einbein e, which leads to a primary constraint, that immediately kills the momentum pe again. Note that He0 becomes one of Hamilton's equations.


4 Reparametrization is a passive transformation. For a related active transformation, see this Phys.SE post.


No comments:

Post a Comment

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...