Solve this Hamiltonian System in Several Ways

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a Hamiltonian system represented by the equations dz/dt = ∇_p H and dp/dt = -∇_z H. The user initially concludes that if ∇_p H = 0, then z must be constant, leading to a linear relationship for p, which raises concerns about the validity of finding a numerical solution. Another participant clarifies the interpretation of the Hamiltonian system, suggesting a different approach involving two variables. Additionally, there is a query about calculating the energy error and the meaning of L^2 error in this context. The conversation highlights the complexities of Hamiltonian systems and the need for clarity in numerical solutions.
ResiRadloff
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Let us denote by ## \textbf{z} = (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 ## the Cartesian coordinates of a point in the plane.

1. Given the Hamiltonian ## H(\textbf{z}) = \frac{|\textbf{z}|^2}{2} ##, write down the corresponding canonical Hamiltonian system for ##\textbf{z}(t)##.

2. Write down the analytical solution of this system.

In the following, assume that the system reads ##\frac{d}{dt}\textbf{z} = \textbf{F}((\textbf{z}(t)))## where ## \textbf{F} = (F_x,F_y) ##, and let ##t^n = n\Delta t## where ##\Delta t > 0## is the time step size. Also let ## \textbf{z}^n = \textbf{z}(t^n) ##.

3. Solve the Hamiltonian system numerically by using the following numerical methods. For each of them write down the scheme, plot your result vs. the analytical result, and plot energy (= Hamiltonian) and ##L^2 ##-error of the scheme. Start with a random point ##(x_0,y_0) \in [0,1]^2 ## at ## t = 0 ## and evolve ## \textbf{x}(t) ## forward in time. You may use ##\Omega = 2, \Delta t = 0.03 ##, and do 500 time steps.

(a) The explicit Euler method: ##\textbf{z}^{n+1} = \textbf{z}^n + \Delta t \textbf{F}(\textbf{z}^n) ; \textbf{z}^0 = \textbf{z}(t=0) ##

[...]
Relevant Equations
--
Good evening,
unfortunately I can't get to the solution of my task

I wrote for the system:

## \frac{dz}{dt} = \nabla_p H ; \\
\frac{dp}{dt} = - \nabla_z H ##

Then the solution would be (as ## \nabla_p H = 0) ##:

## \frac{dz}{dt} = 0 \Rightarrow z = const. ## and ## p = zt + p_0 ##.

But that can't be as now finding a numerical solution doesn't make sense?.🙁

I would be really happy if someone yould help me?

Thanks a lot
Resi

Danke schonmal und viele Grüße
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you not looking at \begin{split}<br /> \frac{dx}{dt} &amp;= \frac{\partial H}{\partial y} \\<br /> \frac{dy}{dt} &amp;= -\frac{\partial H}{\partial x}\end{split} That is how I would interpret "hamiltonian System" if given a "hamilonian" which is a function of exactly two variables.
 
Okay, thanks, yeah that makes more sense.

Does anyone know how to calculate the Energy-error and what is meant by ##L^2## error?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top