Does Lagrangian Mechanics Violate Causality?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of using second derivatives in Lagrangian mechanics and whether this leads to violations of causality. It highlights that third-order differential equations require three initial conditions, which raises concerns about the uniqueness of solutions in classical mechanics, where typically only two conditions are available. The arbitrary nature of solutions suggests a potential loss of causality, particularly in the context of the Lorentz-Abraham force, which can yield non-physical self-accelerating solutions. However, it is argued that in quantum field theory (QFT), well-defined initial and final conditions ensure that solutions are uniquely determined, mitigating causality concerns. The conversation concludes that while mathematical formulations may allow for various interpretations, physical applications typically rely on known initial conditions rather than final ones.
Heirot
Messages
145
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I read somewhere that the second derivatives of coordinates in Lagrangian would violate causality. Why is this so? Does that mean that the whole concept of jerky mechanics violates causality?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Heirot said:
I read somewhere that the second derivatives of coordinates in Lagrangian would violate causality. Why is this so? Does that mean that the whole concept of jerky mechanics violates causality?

The third order differential equation needs three initial conditions. From mathematical view point, it is OK, not problem. But in the Classical Mechanics we think of two initial conditions available: r(0) and (dr/dt)(0). Where take the third one from? The arbitrary character of the solution means loss of causatily. The (two) initial conditions and a given force do not determine the solution unambiguously.

In electrodynamics there is a Lorentz-Abraham force proportional to the third derivative d3r/dt3. Such an equation has non-physical self-accelerating solutions.
 
Does "the arbitrary character of the solution" mean the arbitrary arrow of time? Does it manifest itself also in QFT where our Lagrangians contain only fields and first derivatives?
 
Heirot said:
Does "the arbitrary character of the solution" mean the arbitrary arrow of time?

No, I don't think so. It is just incomplete fixation of the intergation constants. We need more constants to fix a unique trajectory.

Does it manifest itself also in QFT where our Lagrangians contain only fields and first derivatives?

No, in QFT we have well defined initial (and final) conditions, so the solution is completely determined by them. Consider, as an example, a usual QM scattering problem: everything is OK there.

Another thing is the QFT divergences (due to badly guessed equations), but it has nothing in common with the differential equation order.
 
Bob_for_short said:
In electrodynamics there is a Lorentz-Abraham force proportional to the third derivative d3r/dt3. Such an equation has non-physical self-accelerating solutions.

I would like to add that this particular third order differential equation can be re-written as an integral equation, and the time integration is carried out over "future" time. So they often say it violates the causality.

In fact, even in a regular variational principle in mechanics they say: "We know the initial and the final (future) positions", and then they vary the action. But later on, they use only (two) initial conditions, which is quite physical, instead of (two) initial and final positions. Mathematically either way is good but physically we usually do not know final position. It is an unknown datum and it is found by solving the "initial" rather than "boundary" problem.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top