4

I have read some questions (and the Wikipedia article) about the hamiltonian formulation of a QFT, but the only example that seems to be brought up is the scalar case, saying that $$\mathcal{H}_S=\Pi\partial_0\phi-\mathcal{L}_S.$$ Can I write the Hamiltonian for a general theory in the same way? For example, for Yang-Mills theory is the following true? $$\mathcal{H}_{YM}=\pi_\mu^a\partial_0W^{a\mu}-\mathcal{L}_{YM}.$$ What about for an interacting theory like Yang-Mills coupled with a scalar, can I write as follows? $$\mathcal{H}=\pi_\mu^a\partial_0W^{a\mu}+\Pi\partial_0\phi-\mathcal{L}.$$

I don't see why not, after all the two functions should exist for all these theories, and I can't think of another way to find the Hamiltonian knowing the Lagrangian.

Qmechanic
  • 220,844
Mauro Giliberti
  • 6,097

1 Answers1

6

In general the Legendre transformation$^1$ from the Lagrangian to the Hamiltonian formulation may be singular, which leads to primary constraints. This is e.g. the case for gauge theories like Yang-Mills (YM) theory with or without matter, which OP mentions.

However, in case of a singular Legendre transformation, by performing a so-called Dirac-Bergmann analysis (which may lead to secondary constraints), it is still possible in principle to define a corresponding Hamiltonian formulation. Typically, the canonical Hamiltonian $H_0=p\dot{q}-L$ gets amended with terms of the form 'constraint times Lagrange multiplier'. For details, see e.g. Refs. 1 & 2.

References:

  1. P.A.M. Dirac, Lectures on QM, 1964.

  2. M. Henneaux & C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems, 1994.

--

$^1$ Concerning fermions, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.

Qmechanic
  • 220,844