Action in Relativity: Non-Relativistic vs Relativistic Particles

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Meddusa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of action in the context of relativity, specifically comparing expressions for non-relativistic and relativistic particles. Participants explore the implications of different forms of action, the significance of the minus sign in the relativistic action, and the relationship between action, proper time, and energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the action can be expressed in two forms: \( S = \int ds \) and \( S = -mc \int ds \), questioning the context in which each applies.
  • Others argue that both forms are applicable to relativistic particles, with the minus sign arising from the Lagrangian being the difference between kinetic and potential energy.
  • A later reply challenges the idea that the Lagrangian is simply \( T - V \) in relativistic physics, suggesting that it must be a function of velocity and invariant under Poincaré transformations.
  • Some participants clarify that the first expression represents elapsed proper time, while the second incorporates a constant to yield an action with appropriate units.
  • There is a discussion about how the action relates to the geodesic equation and the implications of minimizing action versus maximizing proper time.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the role of the \( mc \) term in the action, seeking clarification on its significance.
  • Another participant notes a distinction between relativistic energy and relativistic kinetic energy, suggesting that the latter does not appear in the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian of a free relativistic particle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the action forms or the implications of the minus sign. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of the Lagrangian and the role of proper time in the action formulation.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations are noted, including the dependence on definitions of action and proper time, as well as unresolved mathematical steps regarding the derivation of the geodesic equation.

Meddusa
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I found that action in relativity is written in two ways:

1) S = ∫ ds

2) S= -mc ∫ ds

is (1) for non-relativistic particles and (2) for the relativistic particle ?
why there is a minus sign in front of it?
I read that writing (2) is up to a guess (-mc term), is it very interesting, anyone comment on this?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Both are for relativistic particles. The minus sign is because the Lagrangian L is the difference between kinetic T and potential energy U, so in this case one has L=T. The mc in front of it is to have the units of energy right. See e.g. Zwiebach's book on String Theory.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Meddusa
In relativistic physics the Lagrangian is not ##T-V##.

The argument goes as follows. For a free particle you should have a Poincare invariant variation of the action. Because of the symmetry under space-time translations the Lagrangian must be a function of ##\dot{\vec{x}}## only. The only scalar action you can build is
$$S_0=-m c^2 \int \mathrm{d} t \sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2/c^2}.$$
Interactions with external fields can be easily built in by assuming reparametrization invariance, i.e., to keep the Lagrangian fist-order homogeneous in ##\dot{x}^{\mu}=(c,\dot{\vec{x}})##. The most simple example is the motion in an electromagnetic field represented by the four-vector potential ##A^{\mu}##:
$$L_{\text{em}}=-mc^2 \sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2/c^2}-\frac{q}{c} \dot{x}^{\mu} A_{\mu}.$$
The kinetic energy follows from the free-particle Lagrangian in the usual way as, ##\vec{p}=\partial L_0/\partial \dot{\vec{x}}##
$$T=\vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}-L_0=\frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2/c^2}}.$$
Note that in the case of the em. field the momenta are not the mechanical but the canonical momenta, which differ in this case
$$\vec{p}=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\vec{x}}} = \frac{m \dot{\vec{x}}}{\sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2/c^2}}+\frac{q}{c} \vec{A}.$$
The Hamiltonian in this case thus is
$$H=T+q A^0.$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Meddusa
vanhees71 said:
In relativistic physics the Lagrangian is not ##T-V##.
Yes. This point is not often highlighted.

vanhees71 said:
The kinetic energy follows from the free-particle Lagrangian in the usual way as, ##\vec{p}=\partial L_0/\partial \dot{\vec{x}}##
$$T=\vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}-L_0=\frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2/c^2}}.$$

The Legendre transformation of the free-particle Lagrangian gives the free-particle Hamiltonian.
In special relativity, the expression ##\vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}-L_0=\frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2/c^2}}## is equal to the "relativistic energy" (the time-component of the particle's 4-momentum).

However, curiously, that is not equal to the "relativistic kinetic energy", which is
##m c^2\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2/c^2}}-1\right)##, as one gets from the work-energy theorem.
In fact, it appears that the relativistic kinetic energy is not a term in either the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian of a free relativistic particle.

I would argue that the minus sign in the action (and in the Lagrangian) is needed to get the canonical momentum of the free-particle equal to the "relativistic momentum" (the spatial-components of the particle's 4-momentum).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Meddusa, vanhees71 and haushofer
Yes, you're right, I was confused. Something similar confused me some time ago concerning the Hilbert action, regarding it as a kinetic energy term for the metric.
 
Thank you all for detailed answers but still I do not feel I got the point.
Writing action without (mc) term means what?

On wikipedia, derivation of the geodesic equation is starting with S = ∫ ds
where ds is specified as "line element"
 
Meddusa said:
I found that action in relativity is written in two ways:

1) S = ∫ ds

2) S= -mc ∫ ds

The first isn't really an action, it's a time (the elapsed proper time on the particle's clock between two fixed events). The second multiplies that time by a constant with units of energy (the particle's rest energy) in order to make it an action. The sign flip is because the equation of motion is derived by minimizing the action, but that corresponds to maximizing the elapsed proper time.
 
PeterDonis said:
The first isn't really an action, it's a time (the elapsed proper time on the particle's clock between two fixed events). The second multiplies that time by a constant with units of energy (the particle's rest energy) in order to make it an action. The sign flip is because the equation of motion is derived by minimizing the action, but that corresponds to maximizing the elapsed proper time.

I am clearer now.
In the notation ds=cdτ where τ is the proper time, right?

Thanks a lot !
 
Recall that:
in dynamics, action has units of energy*time=momentum*displacement=Units of Planck's constant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K