Does Lagrangian Mechanics Violate Causality?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Heirot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Causality Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Lagrangian mechanics on causality, particularly focusing on the role of second and third derivatives of coordinates in the equations of motion. Participants explore whether these mathematical aspects lead to violations of causality in classical mechanics and electrodynamics, as well as their implications in quantum field theory (QFT).

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the presence of second derivatives in Lagrangian mechanics could imply a violation of causality.
  • Others argue that the requirement for three initial conditions in third order differential equations leads to ambiguity in solutions, which they suggest may indicate a loss of causality.
  • A participant questions whether the "arbitrary character of the solution" relates to the arrow of time and its manifestation in QFT, particularly in relation to Lagrangians that involve only first derivatives.
  • Another participant counters that in QFT, well-defined initial and final conditions ensure that solutions are uniquely determined, contrasting with classical mechanics.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the Lorentz-Abraham force in electrodynamics, which involves third derivatives and is said to produce non-physical self-accelerating solutions, potentially violating causality.
  • One participant notes that while variational principles may involve future positions, practical applications typically rely on known initial conditions, leading to a distinction between initial and boundary problems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Lagrangian mechanics inherently violates causality. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of higher-order derivatives and the nature of initial conditions in both classical mechanics and QFT.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of causality and the mathematical treatment of differential equations. The discussion highlights unresolved questions about the implications of initial versus boundary conditions in various physical theories.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K