3

OK, this is probably an elementary question, but I still cannot figure it out.

I have a Hamiltonian function on $\mathbb{R}^2$ that is even in the second argument, i.e. $H(x,-y) = H(x,y)$.

Then we get the Hamiltonian vector field $$X_H(x,y) = (H_y(x,y),-H_x(x,y)).$$

It holds that $H_x(x,-y) = H_x(x,y)$ and $ H_y(x,-y) = - H_y(x,y) $.

I am interested in the properties of the Hamiltonian flow, i.e. $$\dot{\psi}(t) = X_H \circ \psi(t).$$

Are the above enough to show that we can always choose initial conditions such that if $$\psi(t) = (\psi_x(t),\psi_y(t))$$ then $\psi_x(-t) = \psi_x(t)$ and $\psi_y(-t) = -\psi_y(t) $?

tst
  • 1,445

1 Answers1

3

It's pretty easy to show that if your Hamiltonian has these properties, then the system posesses the following property: if $(x(t), y(t))$ is a solution, then $(x(-t), -y(-t))$ is a solution too (this system is reversible with involution $(x, y) \mapsto (x, -y)$). Reusing my illustration from this answer and forgetting that I've used $(u, v)$ axes instead of $(x, y)$ [and also confused $u$ with $v$ on my illustration], we can get the idea where we should place the initial conditions:

enter image description here

Well, the answer is: put it on $y = 0$, which is the line of fixed points of this involution. You could also get this from substituting $t=0$ in your "equation" of interest: it would gave you a condition that $\psi_y (0) = -\psi_y(0)$ thus $\psi_y (0) = 0$.

ADDED LATER

The final step requires us to prove that if we take a trajectory with $(x(0), y(0)) = (x^\ast, 0)$ then $(x(t), y(t)) = (x(-t), -y(-t))$. If we allowed to use some theorems, then it is known that reversible flow $\phi^t$ is conjugated with its inverse using the involution $h$: $$ \phi^t \circ h = h \circ \phi^{-t}.$$

Since $h(x^\ast, 0) = (x^\ast , 0)$ we straightforwardly get that for such initial conditions holds $(x(t), y(t)) \equiv (x(-t), -y(-t))$.

But right now I don't remember how to prove this statement about conjugacy :)

Well, it's funny that Meiss' book uses this conjugace property as the definition from the get go and Wiggins' book doesn't speak about this at all. It required some time to figure out the proof, but it turned to be pretty simple. So we have a flow $\phi^t$ generated by a system of ODEs. Then $\phi^t(z)$ is a solution that passes through point $z$ at $t=0$ (becase $\phi^0 = {\rm id}$). From reversibility we also know that if $\phi^t(z)$ is a solution, then $h \circ \phi^{-t}(z)$ is a solution too. Let's consider a point $x$ and a point $y = h(x)$. Trajectories $\phi^t(x)$ and $\phi^t(y)$ pass through these points respectively. Also, we know that $h \circ \phi^{-t}(y)$ is a trajectory too. But here's the funny thing that happens: both $\phi^{t}(x)$ and $h \circ \phi^{-t}(y) = h \circ \phi^{-t} (h(x))$ pass through the same point $x$ at $t = 0$. Because of flow properties these must be the same trajectories, i.e. $\forall t \; \phi^{t}(x) = h \circ \phi^{-t}(h(x))$. But the point $x$ is arbitrary, hence $\phi^t = h \circ \phi^{-t} \circ h$.

Evgeny
  • 5,895
  • That first step is my actual problem. You say that if $(x(t),y(t))$ is a solution then $(x(-t),y(-t))$ is a solution too. Is this completely obvious? How can one prove that? I am being pedantic here because in my problem $H(x,y)$ is actually a formal series. Usually the techniques that work for analytic Hamiltonian systems work for formal ones, but I am not sure about this one. – tst May 09 '17 at 12:05
  • It's obvious only in a sense that it's easy to check :) The answer that I've already mentioned checks the reversibiity by direct substitution: suppose that $(x(t), y(t))$ is a solution, it satisfies system of the ODEs, some equalities hold, then we check that $(\hat{x}(t), \hat{y}(t))$ is also a solution, where $\hat{x}(t) = x(-t)$ and $\hat{y}(t) = -y(-t)$. – Evgeny May 09 '17 at 12:07
  • OMG, yes. I just saw it. It is obvious. Thanks :) – tst May 09 '17 at 12:10
  • To be honest, you have to prove one final step: why for such trajectories that start on $y=0$ holds that $(x(t), y(t)) = (x(-t), -y(-t))$ :) I'll add this later if there would be any troubles. – Evgeny May 09 '17 at 12:18
  • No, that's fine, the first part is enough for me :) – tst May 09 '17 at 12:29
  • @tst By the way, I've added a proof which uses one property of reversible systems and allows to prove your original question easily. – Evgeny May 09 '17 at 13:07