This question is very closely related to another one I just asked. The general question is to what extent there is a theory of differential equations for smooth correspondences (between a smooth manifold and mathbbR, say). But I'm wondering about a specific well-studied case.
Background
Let N be a compact smooth manifold with tangent bundle TN and cotangent bundle T∗N. In the usual way, pick a Lagrangian L:TNtomathbbR, and suppose that it is nondegenerate in the sense that fracpartialLpartialv, thought of as a map TNtoT∗N, is a fiber bundle isomorphism, where v is a (vector of) fiber coordinate(s). Then, in the usual way, we can define a Hamiltonian H:T∗NtomathbbR by H=pv−L, where pv is the canonical pairing between a cotangent vector and a tangent vector, and I use fracpartialLpartialv to identify TN with T∗N. In the usual way, define on N the second-order ordinary differential equation fracddtbigl[fracpartialLpartialvbigr]=fracpartialLpartialq and v=fracdqdt, or equivalently fracdqdt=fracpartialHpartialp and fracdpdt=−fracpartialHpartialq. (These are all written in local coordinates, where q is a local coordinate on N and v=dq and p=fracpartialpartialq are the corresponding coordinates on TN and T∗N. But the ODE is coordinate-invariant.)
Since N is compact and L is nondegenerate, the ODE has global solutions, and each solution is determined by its initial conditions, which are given equivalently by a point in TN and a point in T∗N. In the usual way, define an action map S:TNtimesmathbbRtomathbbR by S(v,q,t)=intt0L(phi(v,q,s))ds, where phi:TNtimesmathbbRtoTN is the "flow" map for the ODE.
Let pi be the projection TNtoN, so that pi(v,q)=q, and using the flow map phi, define a map TNtimesmathbbR to NtimesNtimesmathbbR via (v,q,t)mapsto(q,pi(phi(v,q,t)),t). Generically, this map is a local isomorphism, in the following sense: for generic (v,q,t) (say, a dense open subset of TNtimesmathbbR when fracpartial2Lpartialv2 is positive-definite), there is a small open neighborhood such that the map to NtimesNtimesmathbbR takes the neighborhood diffeomorphically to its image. Pick one such small neighborhood, and use it to push forward the action function S. Abusing notation, I will call this pushforward S. Then S(q1,q2,t) satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation: fracpartialSpartialt=−H(fracpartialSpartialq2,q2)=−H(−fracpartialSpartialq1,q1).
My question
Above, I defined a local function S:UtomathbbR, where U is a small neighborhood of NtimesNtimesmathbbR, and it satisfied a partial differential equation. But really I should have talked about the correspondence
NtimesNtimesmathbbRoverset(pi,picircphi,t)longleftarrowTNtimesmathbbRoversetSlongrightarrowmathbbR
Is there language with which one can say that this correspondence satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equations? For example, what happens near non-generic (sometimes called "focal") points?
Bonus questions
(If N is not compact, then the flow map does not have global-time solutions. But I can still do everything; I just have to replace the space TNtimesmathbbR by an open subspace. In fact, phi still defines on TNtimesmathbbR the structure of an action groupoid, and both (pi,picircphi,t) and S are groupoid homomorphisms, so that the above correspondence is a span of groupoids. Does this enter the discussion in any interesting way?)
If fracpartialLpartialv does not define a bundle isomorphism, then the Hamiltonian is not well-defined as a function H:T∗NtomathbbR. But it does make sense as a correspondence, by:
T∗NoversetfracpartialLpartialvlongleftarrowTNoversetvfracpartialLpartialv−LlongrightarrowmathbbR
Imposing the condition that fracpartial2Lpartialv2(v,q) is an invertible matrix for each (v,q), so that the ODE is still nondegenerate second-order, does the language of correspondences allow me to talk about the Hamilton-Jacobi equations when the Hamiltonian is not a function but the above correspondence?
Alternately, I could start with a function H:T∗NtomathbbR, and construct a correspondence L, etc. The Legendre transform should really be thought of as a transformation of correspondences, not of functions.
Finally, when fracpartial2Lpartialv2 is sometimes degenerate, then the ODE degenerates, sometimes in complicated ways. Can this be accommodated by making the flow phi into a correspondence rather than a function?
No comments:
Post a Comment