Monday, 25 April 2011

intuition - What is a symplectic form intuitively?

Incidentally, I more or less disagree that symplectic geometry captures what I would consider "classical mechanics". The reason is that in all the examples that I think deserve to be called "classical mechanics", I actually have a configuration space N, and your symplectic manifold is X=rmTN the cotangent bundle. Then, of course, the symplectic form is precisely (part of) the cotangent structure.



This is not to say that symplectic geometry isn't interesting — it's led to great mathematics, and certainly captures some of "classical mechanics". From the physics perspective, what I think makes it most interesting is that it shows that there are strange symmetries between mechanical systems, when you have a symplectomorphism rmTNtormTN that does not arise from a diffeomorphism NtoN.



But physics is not invariant under all symplectomorphisms. Otherwise, how would I know which coordinates are "position" and which are "momentum"? And I do believe that I know this, although maybe I'm wrong. You and I should get together and compare if our Darboux coordinates differ only by a map NtoN, or by some more interesting symplectomorphism.

No comments:

Post a Comment