Talk:Canonical transformation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Hi, I moved the advanced mathematical description to the end because it falls outside the stated scope of the article, and since there already is a symplectomorphism article. I also reverted the superscripts on the generalized coordinates because I'm afraid that many beginning students won't appreciate their significance and might confuse them with potentiation of a coordinate. For example, how will we represent the third coordinate raised to the 2nd power, maybe ? That seems too complicated for beginners, don't you agree? WillowW 22:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(Traumantischer): I really like the article. It is not too hard to follow, but I got stuck at the important point where the generating function G is introduced from the argument of two disappearing variations. First the little lambda makes me wonder: It's introduced without being obvious, then it's set to 1, and it disappears in the same line where it was introduced. Then it would be helpful to know why these variations are written down (action integral?). The function G(q,p,t) then appears as generating function, but why G(q,p,t) is necessary isn't crisp and clear (even though I have my guesses about it): All I'm saying is that G(q,p,t) isn't well motivated. I think, mathematically it's all correct, but somehow this is a point where the text doesn't flow and becomes a bit mysterious. Could the author add a few words for clarification? Traumantischer

can you explicitly describe why Q,P,q,p are all independent. Q,P are obtained from q,p.. Q=Q(q,p) and P=P(q,p). so i think Q ,P should be dependent variable.