Talk:Dirac bracket

Einstein Summation

I decided to not use Einstein summation notation to increase accessibility, but if someone thinks that it would be wise to use it in the name of increased readability, feel free. This is my first significant contribution to wikipedia, so if there are stylistic or implementation issues (like inline math or multiple lines of equations) please let me know so I can become a more sophisticated wiki-contributor.Steve Avery 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More references?

May we have references in adition to Henneaux and Teitelboim and Dirac? Xxanthippe 12:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If I may suggest Piotr W. Hebda, Elements of Classical Point Mechanics: Volume I: Dirac’s Theory of Constraints, available on Amazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.176.119 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those are the only good sources that I am familiar with. If you know of other good references, please share or feel free to add them yourself. I'm sure they are out there since Dirac brackets appear frequently in the literature.Steve Avery 12:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone informed me that Weinberg discusses Dirac brackets. So, I added that reference; see Ch 7 and 8 in Vol 1. Has some illuminating comments, but generally not as thorough as Henneaux and Teitelboim. Does this help? Steve Avery (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about some ISBNs? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I added ISBNs for Henneaux and Weinberg, but I do not have an ISBN for Dirac. Steve Avery (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the ISBN for Dirac's book Simonjtyler (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other references are Gitman and Tyutin Quantization of Fields with Constraints and Sundermeyer Constrained dynamics Simonjtyler (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvements

1) In the opening example section there's the statement "which are unusual in that they are not invertible to the velocities". This statement is too brief: can we expand a little to make its meaning entirely clear? Invert how? cstark (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) The first paragraph of the "Generalized Hamiltonian procedure" section discusses how holonomic constraints are applied to a Lagrangian, and it reads to me as if the subsequent constraints discussed in the rest of the text must also be holonomic. This paragraph could be rephrased for clarity. cstark (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a change of wording. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]