0
$\begingroup$

Consider the hamiltonian system $(M, \omega, H)$ with hamiltonian vector field $X$ defined by $$ \tag{1}\label{1} \iota_{X}\omega = -dH $$ It is a simple matter of applying definitions to show that a smooth function $f$ on $M$ is an integral of motion $$\mathscr{L}_X f = 0 \tag{2} \label{2}$$ iff its hamiltonian vector field $Z$, defined by $$\iota_Z \omega = -df \tag{3}\label{3}$$ preserves the Hamiltonian $H$, that is $H$ is pull-back invariant along the flow of $Z$, or $$\mathscr{L}_Z H = 0 \tag{4}\label{4}$$

Indeed: \begin{split} \mathscr{L}_X f = X(f) & = df(X) \\ & = - \iota_Z \omega \, (X) = -\omega(Z,X) = \omega(X,Z) = \iota_X\omega \, (Z) \\ & = -dH(Z) = -Z(H) = - \mathscr{L}_Z H = 0 \quad \square \end{split} where \eqref{3} is used at the first line, \eqref{1} at the second and \eqref{4} at the last to conclude \eqref{2}.

Since exact forms are closed, hamiltonian vector fields are symplectic by Cartan's magic formuala: $$\mathscr{L}_Z\omega = \iota_Zd\omega + d\iota_Z\omega = 0$$ where the first terms vanishes being $\omega$ closed per definition, and the second being $\iota_Z \omega$ exact, so closed, by \eqref{3}.

There is thus a 1-to-1 correspondence between integrals of motions and hamiltonian (in particular symplectic), Hamiltonian-preserving vector fields.

Can I weaken this assumption? Is it enough to have a Hamiltonian preserving, symplectic vector field $$\mathscr{L}_Z H = 0, \quad \mathscr{L}_Z \omega = 0 $$ to obtain a constant of motion? In other words, is this enough to make $Z$ hamiltonian? Of course the answer is yes if the first de Rham cohomology group is trivial, since then 1-forms are closed iff exact and vector fields are symplectic iff hamiltonian; but what if this is not the case?

I'm pretty sure the answer lies in the moment map, but I was trying to come up with an intuitive answer before studying it.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

No, it's not. For example, take $M = \mathbb{R}^2\times(S^1\times\mathbb{R})$ with the symplectic form $\omega = dx\wedge dy + \alpha\wedge dz$, $H=H(x,y)$, and $Z=\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$. Here $\alpha$ is the closed 1-form that takes value 1 on $\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}$: informally, $\alpha=d\theta$, although this is only true in a coordinate patch. Then $\mathscr{L}_ZH=0$ and $\mathscr{L}_Z\omega=0$. But $i_Z\omega = -\alpha$, and $\alpha$ is not actually an exact form (since its integral around $S^1$ is 1). So there's no corresponding globally defined integral of motion. Locally, we can say the integral of motion is $\theta$. However this can't be extended to a globally defined function.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I understand this amounts to saying that closed forms are locally exact, and I was indeed interested in the global obstruction. $\endgroup$
    – DavideL
    Mar 9 '20 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ Yesh, pretty much (that's my understanding anyway). $\endgroup$
    – user17945
    Mar 9 '20 at 15:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.