3 added 602 characters in body

Using the h-principle, Gromov showed that there is a symplectic form on $\mathbb{R}^6$ which admits $S^3$ as a Lagrangian submanifold. Using holomorphic curves, he showed that the standard symplectic form on $T^* \mathbb{R}^3$ does not admit any such Lagrangian. There is now a whole industry of building exotic symplectic forms on non-compact manifolds (see papers of Seidel-Smith, Mark McLean, ...).

Probably the only reasonable answer to characterising cotangent bundles uses the existence of a Lagrangian foliation by planes. If you have a foliation parametrised by a manifold which admits a Lagrangian section, then you have yourself an open subset of a cotangent bundle (this is just Weinstein's theorem). You can't drop the condition of the existence of a section precisely because you can add the pull back of a $2$-form on the base. If your symplectic form is "complete" then the existence of a Lagrangian section is a cohomological condition. Pick any section: If the pullback of $\omega$ doesn't vanish, then you don't have a cotangent bundle. If it vanishes in cohomology, you can use a primitive $1$-form to flow your section to a Lagrangian.

I want to point out that the methods we have for producing different symplectic forms do not proceed by writing down different $2$-forms on the same space. Rather, you find some construction of symplectic manifolds (using some general notion of symplectic surgery) which produces a large class of symplectic manifolds, then you prove that some of these result in the same smooth manifold. The existence of a diffeomorphism is obtained abstractly, so I do not know of examples where we can write down a Hamiltonian whose dynamics for two different symplectic forms can be compared.

2 added 320 characters in body

Using the h-principle, Gromov showed that there is a symplectic form on $\mathbb{R}^6$ which admits $S^3$ as a Lagrangian submanifold. Using holomorphic curves, he showed that the standard symplectic form on $T^* \mathbb{R}^3$ does not admit any such Lagrangian. There is now a whole industry of building exotic symplectic forms on non-compact manifolds (see papers of Seidel-Smith, Mark McLean, ...).

Probably the only reasonable answer to characterising cotangent bundles uses the existence of a Lagrangian foliation by planes. If you have a foliation parametrised by a manifold which admits a Lagrangian section, then you have yourself an open subset of a cotangent bundle (this is just Weinstein's theorem). You can't drop the condition of the existence of a section precisely because you can add the pull back of a $2$-form on the base. If your symplectic form is "complete" then the existence of a Lagrangian section is a cohomological condition. Pick any section: If the pullback of $\omega$ doesn't vanish, then you don't have a cotangent bundle. If it vanishes in cohomology, you can use a primitive $1$-form to flow your section to a Lagrangian.

1

Using the h-principle, Gromov showed that there is a symplectic form on $\mathbb{R}^6$ which admits $S^3$ as a Lagrangian submanifold. Using holomorphic curves, he showed that the standard symplectic form on $T^* \mathbb{R}^3$ does not admit any such Lagrangian. There is now a whole industry of building exotic symplectic forms on non-compact manifolds (see papers of Seidel-Smith, Mark McLean, ...).

Probably the only reasonable answer to characterising cotangent bundles uses the existence of a Lagrangian foliation by planes. If you have a foliation parametrised by a manifold which admits a Lagrangian section, then you have yourself an open subset of a cotangent bundle (this is just Weinstein's theorem). You can't drop the condition of the existence of a section precisely because you can add the pull back a $2$-form on the base.