Higher order derivatives in field theories

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the treatment of higher order derivatives in field theories, particularly in the context of Lagrangians. Participants explore the implications of neglecting higher order derivatives, questioning whether this omission affects Lorentz invariance or leads to issues such as unbounded spectra in quantum field theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the common practice of writing Lagrangians without higher order derivatives, suggesting that neglecting them might have implications for Lorentz invariance and could lead to unbounded spectra.
  • Another participant proposes that the issue of higher order derivatives could also be examined in a classical context, arguing that they complicate the definition of boundary-value problems and initial conditions for particles.
  • This second participant raises concerns about the measurability of initial conditions that depend on higher order derivatives, such as acceleration, and suggests that such a framework may not align with geometric descriptions in relativity.
  • A later reply references a link that may provide additional insights or examples related to higher derivative theories.
  • Another participant notes that higher order derivatives lead to a linear dependence of the Hamiltonian on one of the canonical momenta, suggesting that this could result in the Hamiltonian being unbounded from below.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of higher order derivatives, with some focusing on classical mechanics and others on quantum field theory. There is no consensus on whether the neglect of higher order derivatives is justified or what the consequences might be.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining initial conditions and boundary-value problems when higher order derivatives are involved, as well as potential issues with Lorentz invariance and the implications for the stability of the spectrum in quantum theories.

lasm2000
Messages
33
Reaction score
3
It is common lore to write lagrangians in field theories in the form

[tex]L(t)=\int d^{3}x\mathcal{L}(\phi_{a},\partial_{\mu}\phi_{a})[/tex].

Nonetheless, is there any particular reason for doing that? Why do we neglect higher order derivatives? Does it mess around with Lorentz invariance or something like that? I have heard that higher order lagrangians give origin to a spectra that is not bounded from below (then we can always have radiative transitions to a lower level).

Can someone confirm that or knows of a better reason?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'll take a shot at this one, but I could be totally wrong. You seem to have quantum field theory in mind, but the question seems to me like it could just as well be posed in a classical context rather than a quantum-mechanical one, and for discrete particles rather than continuous fields.

For a classical description of particles, it seems to me that higher-order derivatives lead to problems when you want to define boundary-value problems. If I shoot a particle out of a gun, the initial conditions are the position and velocity. I'm not even sure what it would mean to specify the initial acceleration. I'm not sure that I could even do measurements that could distinguish initial conditions that differed only in their acceleration. Acceleration (unlike velocity) can change discontinuously, so it's not clear that it can even be measured at an instant in time.

In the context of relativity, we expect everything to be describable in geometric terms. Geometrically, two points are supposed to determine a line. In other words, if I specify an event, and another event infinitesimally close to it, then I've essentially determined a geodesic, which is the motion of a particle whose world-line passed through those two events. In a theory where initial conditions depended on higher-order derivatives, I'd have to specify more than two points to determine a line. I don't know of a geometry where that makes sense.
 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~gz218/2010/01/higher-derivative-theories.html
 
Thanks for your answers. Thats interesting, so it gives raise to a linear dependece of H with P1 (one of the canonical momentums that arise due to the fact that we now need four quantities as input). Then we can just decrease the value of H by decreasing the one of P1, so then, no bound from below.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K