Hamiltonian as the generator of time translations

AI Thread Summary
The Hamiltonian is identified as the generator of time translations due to its role in the evolution of a system's state over time, as expressed in the equation for the time derivative of a function F(q,p). This relationship is derived from the Poisson bracket, where if F is not explicitly time-dependent, its time evolution is solely determined by the Hamiltonian. The discussion also references Noether's theorem, which connects symmetries and conservation laws in physics. For further understanding, Susskind's classical mechanics lectures on YouTube are recommended. The concept emphasizes the fundamental link between Hamiltonian dynamics and time evolution in classical mechanics.
Frank Castle
Messages
579
Reaction score
23
In literature I have read it is said that the Hamiltonian ##H## is the generator of time translations. Why is this the case? Where does this statement derive from?

Does it follow from the observation that, for a given function ##F(q,p)##, $$\frac{dF}{dt}=\lbrace F,H\rbrace +\frac{\partial F}{\partial t}$$ In particular, if ##F## is not explicitly dependent on time, then $$\frac{dF}{dt}=\lbrace F,H\rbrace $$ Or is there more to it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah poisson brackets!

I think what you are looking for is Noethers theorem.

Susskinds classical mechanics course on youtube, i think lecture 4 (symmetries) and 8 (poisson) will help you.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top