- #1
bleist88
- 6
- 0
Can Lagrangian densities be constructed from the physics and then derive equations of motion from them? As it seems now, from my reading and a course I took, that the equations of motion are known (i.e. the Klein-Gordon and Dirac Equation) and then from them the Lagrangian density can be assumed. Then from there, other physics may be derived. Is it possible, instead, to start with Lagrangian ahead of time and use it to derive new equations of motion and new physics?
In a similar manor, it seems that in many books (Zee, Peskin & Schroeder and others) that there is an argument for where mass comes from. I see statements along the lines of "m is simply a parameter in our Lagrangian, and later we will show that this term must be the mass". Sure enough, they will work through Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics to arrive at some physical argument on why m must be the mass. However, this seems silly to me. The Lagrangian comes directly from knowing what it must be in order to reproduce the equations of motion that you're confident (again the Klein-Gordon and Dirac), so it seems to me that it must have been the mass already.
I'd be very interested in the insight you might share. (Also, I must apologize. I have been sitting on this question for a year and have been planning to have notes, quotations and specific examples from books but I never got around to producing them. I would have liked to have prepared a more educated question but life has not permitted me the time.)
Thanks!
In a similar manor, it seems that in many books (Zee, Peskin & Schroeder and others) that there is an argument for where mass comes from. I see statements along the lines of "m is simply a parameter in our Lagrangian, and later we will show that this term must be the mass". Sure enough, they will work through Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics to arrive at some physical argument on why m must be the mass. However, this seems silly to me. The Lagrangian comes directly from knowing what it must be in order to reproduce the equations of motion that you're confident (again the Klein-Gordon and Dirac), so it seems to me that it must have been the mass already.
I'd be very interested in the insight you might share. (Also, I must apologize. I have been sitting on this question for a year and have been planning to have notes, quotations and specific examples from books but I never got around to producing them. I would have liked to have prepared a more educated question but life has not permitted me the time.)
Thanks!