How can I think about Poisson commutation geometrically?












2












$begingroup$


In the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, we have the result that, in a system with Hamiltonian $H(q_i,p_i), i=1,dots,N$, a quantity $f(q_i,p_i)$ time-evolves according to
$$ frac{mathrm{d} f}{mathrm{d} t} = {f,H} = frac{partial f}{partial q_i}frac{partial H}{partial p_i} - frac{partial f}{partial p_i}frac{partial H}{partial q_i} $$
and so $f$ is conserved if and only if it Poisson commutes with $H$, i.e. ${f,H} = 0$.



In the case $N=1$ so that the phase space is 2-dimensional, and contour surfaces of functions are curves. Contours of $H$ are trajectories, and $f$ is a conserved quantity if and only if the contours of $f$ align with those of $H$. But for $Ngeq2$, the contour surfaces of $H$ and $f$ are $(2N-1)$-dimensional manifolds in the $2N$-dimensional phase space. What can you say about these surfaces when ${f,H} = 0$?



In quantum mechanics, when the functions $f$ and $H$ are replaced by operators $hat{f}$ and $hat{H}$ and the Poisson bracket is replaced by the commutator, then $[hat{f},hat{H}] = 0$ means that the two operators have coinciding eigenspaces. Is there such a nicely geometric way of visualising the classical equivalent?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    In the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, we have the result that, in a system with Hamiltonian $H(q_i,p_i), i=1,dots,N$, a quantity $f(q_i,p_i)$ time-evolves according to
    $$ frac{mathrm{d} f}{mathrm{d} t} = {f,H} = frac{partial f}{partial q_i}frac{partial H}{partial p_i} - frac{partial f}{partial p_i}frac{partial H}{partial q_i} $$
    and so $f$ is conserved if and only if it Poisson commutes with $H$, i.e. ${f,H} = 0$.



    In the case $N=1$ so that the phase space is 2-dimensional, and contour surfaces of functions are curves. Contours of $H$ are trajectories, and $f$ is a conserved quantity if and only if the contours of $f$ align with those of $H$. But for $Ngeq2$, the contour surfaces of $H$ and $f$ are $(2N-1)$-dimensional manifolds in the $2N$-dimensional phase space. What can you say about these surfaces when ${f,H} = 0$?



    In quantum mechanics, when the functions $f$ and $H$ are replaced by operators $hat{f}$ and $hat{H}$ and the Poisson bracket is replaced by the commutator, then $[hat{f},hat{H}] = 0$ means that the two operators have coinciding eigenspaces. Is there such a nicely geometric way of visualising the classical equivalent?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      In the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, we have the result that, in a system with Hamiltonian $H(q_i,p_i), i=1,dots,N$, a quantity $f(q_i,p_i)$ time-evolves according to
      $$ frac{mathrm{d} f}{mathrm{d} t} = {f,H} = frac{partial f}{partial q_i}frac{partial H}{partial p_i} - frac{partial f}{partial p_i}frac{partial H}{partial q_i} $$
      and so $f$ is conserved if and only if it Poisson commutes with $H$, i.e. ${f,H} = 0$.



      In the case $N=1$ so that the phase space is 2-dimensional, and contour surfaces of functions are curves. Contours of $H$ are trajectories, and $f$ is a conserved quantity if and only if the contours of $f$ align with those of $H$. But for $Ngeq2$, the contour surfaces of $H$ and $f$ are $(2N-1)$-dimensional manifolds in the $2N$-dimensional phase space. What can you say about these surfaces when ${f,H} = 0$?



      In quantum mechanics, when the functions $f$ and $H$ are replaced by operators $hat{f}$ and $hat{H}$ and the Poisson bracket is replaced by the commutator, then $[hat{f},hat{H}] = 0$ means that the two operators have coinciding eigenspaces. Is there such a nicely geometric way of visualising the classical equivalent?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      In the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, we have the result that, in a system with Hamiltonian $H(q_i,p_i), i=1,dots,N$, a quantity $f(q_i,p_i)$ time-evolves according to
      $$ frac{mathrm{d} f}{mathrm{d} t} = {f,H} = frac{partial f}{partial q_i}frac{partial H}{partial p_i} - frac{partial f}{partial p_i}frac{partial H}{partial q_i} $$
      and so $f$ is conserved if and only if it Poisson commutes with $H$, i.e. ${f,H} = 0$.



      In the case $N=1$ so that the phase space is 2-dimensional, and contour surfaces of functions are curves. Contours of $H$ are trajectories, and $f$ is a conserved quantity if and only if the contours of $f$ align with those of $H$. But for $Ngeq2$, the contour surfaces of $H$ and $f$ are $(2N-1)$-dimensional manifolds in the $2N$-dimensional phase space. What can you say about these surfaces when ${f,H} = 0$?



      In quantum mechanics, when the functions $f$ and $H$ are replaced by operators $hat{f}$ and $hat{H}$ and the Poisson bracket is replaced by the commutator, then $[hat{f},hat{H}] = 0$ means that the two operators have coinciding eigenspaces. Is there such a nicely geometric way of visualising the classical equivalent?







      classical-mechanics quantum-mechanics hamilton-equations






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jun 10 '17 at 0:01









      Jonathan Michael Foonlan TsangJonathan Michael Foonlan Tsang

      858




      858






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          So your velocity in phase-space $(dot q_1, dot q_2, ..., dot q_N,dot p_1,...,dot p_N )$ is an 2N -dim tangent vector lying on the kinematically constant 2N -1 -dim hypersurfaces specified by the k independent conserved quantities, the ones Poisson-bracket commuting with the Hamiltonian (which is one of them) and thus invariant in time.



          You may see these ones intersect pairwise; so the common intersection of all of them on which your velocity (trajectory) must lie is at least 1-dimensional. In N =1 you cannot have another independent quantity beyond H itself, the energy. One more would "freeze" the trajectory to an immovable point.



          A system with k=N such quantities, is called completely integrable , and the leaves of the invariant foliation are invariant tori, displayed visibly by action-angle variables. Think of N constant momenta and uniform motion of the N coordinates.



          Systems with more invariants, k>N , are superintegrable, and are most elegantly described by Nambu mechanics.



          Typically, the most extreme ("maximally") superintegrable systems have their 1-dim trajectory completely specified by the 2N -1 constants of the motion, being the intersection of their hypersurfaces. For example, in 3 dimensions, so 6-dim phase space, the Kepler problem (central potential) has 3 conserved angular momentum components, the hamiltonian, and an extra independent conserved hypersurface associated with the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector; so the closed Kepler planetary phase-space trajectories are explicitly described by their collective Nambu 6-bracket.



          You might also illustrate this with the 3-d harmonic oscillator, also maximally superintegrable.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2316679%2fhow-can-i-think-about-poisson-commutation-geometrically%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            So your velocity in phase-space $(dot q_1, dot q_2, ..., dot q_N,dot p_1,...,dot p_N )$ is an 2N -dim tangent vector lying on the kinematically constant 2N -1 -dim hypersurfaces specified by the k independent conserved quantities, the ones Poisson-bracket commuting with the Hamiltonian (which is one of them) and thus invariant in time.



            You may see these ones intersect pairwise; so the common intersection of all of them on which your velocity (trajectory) must lie is at least 1-dimensional. In N =1 you cannot have another independent quantity beyond H itself, the energy. One more would "freeze" the trajectory to an immovable point.



            A system with k=N such quantities, is called completely integrable , and the leaves of the invariant foliation are invariant tori, displayed visibly by action-angle variables. Think of N constant momenta and uniform motion of the N coordinates.



            Systems with more invariants, k>N , are superintegrable, and are most elegantly described by Nambu mechanics.



            Typically, the most extreme ("maximally") superintegrable systems have their 1-dim trajectory completely specified by the 2N -1 constants of the motion, being the intersection of their hypersurfaces. For example, in 3 dimensions, so 6-dim phase space, the Kepler problem (central potential) has 3 conserved angular momentum components, the hamiltonian, and an extra independent conserved hypersurface associated with the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector; so the closed Kepler planetary phase-space trajectories are explicitly described by their collective Nambu 6-bracket.



            You might also illustrate this with the 3-d harmonic oscillator, also maximally superintegrable.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              So your velocity in phase-space $(dot q_1, dot q_2, ..., dot q_N,dot p_1,...,dot p_N )$ is an 2N -dim tangent vector lying on the kinematically constant 2N -1 -dim hypersurfaces specified by the k independent conserved quantities, the ones Poisson-bracket commuting with the Hamiltonian (which is one of them) and thus invariant in time.



              You may see these ones intersect pairwise; so the common intersection of all of them on which your velocity (trajectory) must lie is at least 1-dimensional. In N =1 you cannot have another independent quantity beyond H itself, the energy. One more would "freeze" the trajectory to an immovable point.



              A system with k=N such quantities, is called completely integrable , and the leaves of the invariant foliation are invariant tori, displayed visibly by action-angle variables. Think of N constant momenta and uniform motion of the N coordinates.



              Systems with more invariants, k>N , are superintegrable, and are most elegantly described by Nambu mechanics.



              Typically, the most extreme ("maximally") superintegrable systems have their 1-dim trajectory completely specified by the 2N -1 constants of the motion, being the intersection of their hypersurfaces. For example, in 3 dimensions, so 6-dim phase space, the Kepler problem (central potential) has 3 conserved angular momentum components, the hamiltonian, and an extra independent conserved hypersurface associated with the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector; so the closed Kepler planetary phase-space trajectories are explicitly described by their collective Nambu 6-bracket.



              You might also illustrate this with the 3-d harmonic oscillator, also maximally superintegrable.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                So your velocity in phase-space $(dot q_1, dot q_2, ..., dot q_N,dot p_1,...,dot p_N )$ is an 2N -dim tangent vector lying on the kinematically constant 2N -1 -dim hypersurfaces specified by the k independent conserved quantities, the ones Poisson-bracket commuting with the Hamiltonian (which is one of them) and thus invariant in time.



                You may see these ones intersect pairwise; so the common intersection of all of them on which your velocity (trajectory) must lie is at least 1-dimensional. In N =1 you cannot have another independent quantity beyond H itself, the energy. One more would "freeze" the trajectory to an immovable point.



                A system with k=N such quantities, is called completely integrable , and the leaves of the invariant foliation are invariant tori, displayed visibly by action-angle variables. Think of N constant momenta and uniform motion of the N coordinates.



                Systems with more invariants, k>N , are superintegrable, and are most elegantly described by Nambu mechanics.



                Typically, the most extreme ("maximally") superintegrable systems have their 1-dim trajectory completely specified by the 2N -1 constants of the motion, being the intersection of their hypersurfaces. For example, in 3 dimensions, so 6-dim phase space, the Kepler problem (central potential) has 3 conserved angular momentum components, the hamiltonian, and an extra independent conserved hypersurface associated with the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector; so the closed Kepler planetary phase-space trajectories are explicitly described by their collective Nambu 6-bracket.



                You might also illustrate this with the 3-d harmonic oscillator, also maximally superintegrable.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                So your velocity in phase-space $(dot q_1, dot q_2, ..., dot q_N,dot p_1,...,dot p_N )$ is an 2N -dim tangent vector lying on the kinematically constant 2N -1 -dim hypersurfaces specified by the k independent conserved quantities, the ones Poisson-bracket commuting with the Hamiltonian (which is one of them) and thus invariant in time.



                You may see these ones intersect pairwise; so the common intersection of all of them on which your velocity (trajectory) must lie is at least 1-dimensional. In N =1 you cannot have another independent quantity beyond H itself, the energy. One more would "freeze" the trajectory to an immovable point.



                A system with k=N such quantities, is called completely integrable , and the leaves of the invariant foliation are invariant tori, displayed visibly by action-angle variables. Think of N constant momenta and uniform motion of the N coordinates.



                Systems with more invariants, k>N , are superintegrable, and are most elegantly described by Nambu mechanics.



                Typically, the most extreme ("maximally") superintegrable systems have their 1-dim trajectory completely specified by the 2N -1 constants of the motion, being the intersection of their hypersurfaces. For example, in 3 dimensions, so 6-dim phase space, the Kepler problem (central potential) has 3 conserved angular momentum components, the hamiltonian, and an extra independent conserved hypersurface associated with the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector; so the closed Kepler planetary phase-space trajectories are explicitly described by their collective Nambu 6-bracket.



                You might also illustrate this with the 3-d harmonic oscillator, also maximally superintegrable.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Nov 25 '18 at 23:15

























                answered Nov 24 '18 at 22:14









                Cosmas ZachosCosmas Zachos

                1,560520




                1,560520






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2316679%2fhow-can-i-think-about-poisson-commutation-geometrically%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

                    Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

                    Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?