2
$\begingroup$

The canonical one-form is defined here: http://books.google.nl/books?id=uycWAu1yY2gC&lpg=PA128&dq=canonical%20one%20form%20hamiltonian&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false

My problem is this: It states that if $(x_1,\dots x_n)$ are local coordinates in $N$, a 1-form $\alpha\in T^*_x N$ is represented by $\alpha = \Sigma^n_{j=1} y_jdx_j$ It then goes on to define a special 1-form $\lambda$ on $T^*N$ by $\lambda = \Sigma^n_{j=1} y_jdx_j$.

This to me looks the same as $\alpha$ and as a 1-form on $N$ and not on $T^*N$. What am I missing here?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

This sort of thing can be a bit confusing!

A local one-form on $N$ is given by $\sum_j y_j(x) dx_j$; this gives coordinates $(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ on the fibres of $T^*N$, so we have local coordinates $(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ on the total space of $T^*N$. Therefore a local one-form on $T^*N$ is $\sum_j\big(\alpha_j(x,y) dx_j + \beta_j(x,y) dy_j\big)$.

The canonical one-form on $T^*N$ is given by $\alpha_j = y_j,~ \beta_j = 0$. In words, it has no components 'pointing along the fibre', and its transverse components are given by the point we're sitting at in the fibre.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Is then correct in saying that the $dx_j$ in the local one-form on $N$ are different from the $dx_j$ in the local one-form on $T^*N$, since the former act on tangent vectors of $N$ and the later on tangent vectors of $T^*N$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 31, 2013 at 11:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that's the right way to think about it. It's a slight abuse of notation I suppose; if $\pi : T^*N \to N$ is the projection, then we might write $dx_j = \pi^* dx_j$! $\endgroup$ Commented May 31, 2013 at 11:22
2
$\begingroup$

To make it even more transparent, I would do the following. Suppose $N$ is our manifold, $T^*N$ is the total space of the cotangent bundle, $\pi\colon T^*N\to N$ is the projection, and $(U,\phi)$ is a chart for $N$ with $\phi = \big(x^i\big)$. Then we get a chart $\big(\pi^{-1}(U),\tilde \phi\big)$ on $T^*N$ defined as follows. For each $\omega\in \pi^{-1}(U)$ there is a $p\in U$ so $\omega\in T^*_pN$, and $\omega$ can be written as $\omega = y_i(\omega)\,dx^i|_p$. The map $\tilde\phi\colon \pi^{-1}(U)\to \phi(U)\times\mathbb{R}^n$ is defined as $$ \omega\mapsto \big((x^1\circ\pi)(\omega),\dots,(x^n\circ\pi)(\omega),y_1(\omega),\dots,y_n(\omega)\big). $$ If we put $\widetilde x^{i} = x^i\circ\pi$, then we can write $\tilde \phi = \big(\widetilde x^{i},y_i\big)$. Moreover, for each $\omega \in \pi^{-1}(U)$, we get a basis for $T_\omega\big(T^*N\big)$ associated to the chart $\tilde\phi$: $$ {\partial\over \partial \widetilde x^{i}}\bigg|_\omega,{\partial\over \partial y_i}\bigg|_\omega, \quad i = 1,\dots,n. $$ We get a corresponding dual basis for $T_\omega^*\big(T^*N\big)$: $$ d\widetilde x^{i}\big|_\omega,d y_i\big|_\omega, \quad i = 1,\dots,n. $$ Hence if $(U,\phi) = (U,x^i)$ are local coordinates on $N$, for each $\omega\in \pi^{-1}(U)$, then the canonical $1$-form $\lambda_\omega\in T^*_\omega\big(T^*N\big)$, and $\lambda_\omega$ can be written in terms of the basis $d\widetilde x^i|_\omega,dy_i|_\omega$ as $$ \lambda_\omega = y_i(\omega)\,d\widetilde x^{i}\big|_\omega, $$ or as a local section $T^*U\to T^*\big(T^*U\big)$ as $$ \lambda = y_i\,d\widetilde x^{i}. $$

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.