Conserved quantities via Poisson brackets

In summary, in this conversation, the person is asking for help with a calculation involving rewriting equations and using Leibniz's rule and the Levi-Civita symbol. They are specifically trying to show that a certain term should equal 0, but are unsure if they have made a mistake in their calculations. They receive assistance in understanding the summation indices and how to properly manipulate the expression to show that it indeed equals 0.
  • #1
Lambda96
163
62
Homework Statement
Show that ##L_j^{(1)}+L_j^{(2)}## is preserved
Relevant Equations
See screenshot
Hi,

Results from the previous task, which we may use
Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-15 um 19.12.52.png
I am unfortunately stuck with the following task
Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png


Hi,

I have first started to rewrite the Hamiltonian and the angular momentum from vector notation to scalar notation:

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\vec{p_1}^2+\frac{1}{2m}\vec{p_2}^2-\alpha|\vec{q_1}- \vec{q_2}|^2= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{1i}^2+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{2i}^2-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2$$

$$L_j^{(1)}+L_j^{(2)}=\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}+\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(2)}p_l^{(2)}$$

Before inserting the above values into the Poisson bracket, I have rewritten the Poisson bracket as follows

$$\{ H,L_j^{(1)}+L_j^{(2)} \}=\{ H,L_j^{(1)}\}+\{H,L_j^{(2)} \}$$

To save paperwork, I will now only calculate ##\{ H,L_j^{(1)}\}##. the calculation for ##L_j^{(2)## would run analogously

$$\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{1i}^2+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{2i}^2-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$
$$\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{1i}^2,\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}+ \{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2m}p_{2i}^2,\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}+ \{-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$
 

Attachments

  • Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    61.8 KB · Views: 86
  • Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2023-01-12 um 10.48.04.png
    61.8 KB · Views: 79
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Because of the previous problem, the terms with ##q^2## become zero, so ##\{ \vec{q}^2,L_j \}=0## also the terms with the different variables become zero and only the following term remains

$$\{-\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(q_{1i}-q_{2i})^2, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$

Now you can square the bracket off and get ##q^2## terms again, which again add up to zero, leaving only the following term.

$$\{\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}q_{1i}q_{2i}, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}$$

For the left-hand side I have now used Leibniz's rule and the following applies to the term then ##\{q_{2i},q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)} \}=0## and the following term remains

$$\{\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}q_{1i}, \sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}q_{2i}$$

Now you can factor out some terms and get the following representation

$$\alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\sum\limits_{k,l}\epsilon_{jkl}\{q_{1i}, q_k^{(1)}p_l^{(1)}\}q_{2i}$$

Now you can use the result from the previous task and get

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}$$

for the calculation ##\{H,L_j^{(2)} \}## I got the following ##\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}##, so I get as final result:

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$

Actually, the result should be 0 in order to conserve the observable, have I miscalculated somewhere or can I still zero the above term with an index manipulation?

Sorry to split my calculation into two posts, but when I do the whole calculation in one post, it is not displayed correctly.
 
  • #3
Lambda96 said:
so I get as final result:
$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$
Actually, the result should be 0
I think you are essentially there. Play with the expression above and see if you can see why it equals 0. Note that ##k## and ##i## are dummy summation indices.
 
  • Like
Likes Lambda96
  • #4
Thank you for your help TSny 👍👍

I have now proceeded as follows

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$

Now in the second term I have swapped the indices of ##q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}## to ##q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}##.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}$$

By doing this, I have made an anticyclic permutation to the Levi-Civita symbol, which makes it negative and I can write the above equation as follows.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}-\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_j^{(1)}=0$$
 
  • #5
Lambda96 said:
I have now proceeded as follows

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}$$

Now in the second term I have swapped the indices of ##q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)}## to ##q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}##.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}+\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}$$
This looks good. Note that the index ##j## is a fixed index that is not summed. It corresponds to the fixed index ##j## that you started with in the expression ##\{H, L_j^{(1)}\}##. The reason that you were allowed to swap the indices ##i## and ##k## in the second term is that you are summing over ##i## and ##k##. That is, the equality $$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)} =\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}$$ should actually be written as $$\sum_{k, i}\left(\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(2)}q_i^{(1)} \right) =\sum_{k, i}\left(\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)} + \epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_k^{(1)}\right)$$ It's only because of the summation over ##i## and ##k## that we have equality of these two expressions.

Let me know if this is not clear.

Lambda96 said:
By doing this, I have made an anticyclic permutation to the Levi-Civita symbol, which makes it negative and I can write the above equation as follows.

$$\epsilon_{jki}q_k^{(1)}q_i^{(2)}-\epsilon_{jik}q_i^{(2)}q_j^{(1)}=0$$
The second term is not correct. Double-check this term to make sure this is what you intended to type. The index ##j## should still be a fixed index that occurs only in the levi-civita symbol and a summation over ##k## and ##i## should be included.
 
  • #6
Thank you for your help and explanation TSny 👍👍👍

In my notes I had included the sum over k and had unfortunately forgotten to include this in my post 4, but in my notes I had forgotten the sum over i in the course of the calculation, thanks to your explanation I have now noticed this, thank you very much.

Unfortunately I can't quite understand why I wrote j instead of k in my last equation, probably I just did too much index notation the last couple of days :smile:

Thanks again for your help 👍
 
  • Like
Likes TSny
  • #7
One can also argue without any calculation ;-)). The total angular momentum ##\vec{J}=\vec{L}^{(1)}+\vec{L}^{(2)}## generate rotations for all vector quantities of both systems, from this you get that ##\vec{V}^{(j)} \cdot \vec{W}^{(k)}## as scalars commute with all components of ##\vec{J}##.
 

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
455
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
655
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
710
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top