Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:56:40.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hamiltonian Form of Field Dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

P. A. M. Dirac
P. A. M. Dirac*
Affiliation:
St. John's College, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In classical dynamics one has usually supposed that when one has solved the equations of motion one has done everything worth doing. However, with the further insight into general dynamical theory which has been provided by the discovery of quantum mechanics, one is lead to believe that this is not the case. It seems that there is some further work to be done, namely to group the solutions into families (each family corresponding to one principal function satisfying the Hamilton-Jacobi equation). The family does not have any importance from the point of view of Newtonian mechanics; but it is a family which corresponds to one state of motion in the quantum theory, so presumably the family has some deep significance in nature, not yet properly understood.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Mathematics , Volume 3 , 1951 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Mathematical Society 1951

References

[1] Weiss, P., On the Hamilton-Jacobi theory and quantization of a dynamical continuum, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, vol. 169 (1938), 102.Google Scholar
[2] Dirac, P. A. M., Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics, Can. J. Math., vol. 2 (1950), 129.Google Scholar
[3] Dirac, P. A. M., Quantum theory of localizable dynamical systems, Phys. Rev., vol. 73 (1948), 1092.Google Scholar
[4] Chang, T. S., Quantum mechanics of localizable dynamical systems, Phys. Rev., vol. 78 (1950), 592.Google Scholar
[5] Fermi, E., Quantum theory of radiation, Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 4 (1932), 87.Google Scholar