How do you transition from the QED Lagrangian to classical electrodynamics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben Niehoff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Maxwell Qed
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transition from the Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) Lagrangian to classical electrodynamics. Participants explore the mathematical manipulations and conceptual frameworks necessary to relate these two formulations, focusing on the kinetic terms and the mass term in the Lagrangian.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how to derive the classical Lagrangian from the QED Lagrangian, specifically regarding the inclusion of the kinetic term.
  • Another participant suggests that while it is possible to rewrite the QED Lagrangian in terms of the current density, one should not expect to obtain a square root form due to the nature of the Lagrangian density.
  • A participant discusses the mass term and its relation to plane wave solutions, leading to a derived expression for the Lagrangian that does not match the expected classical form.
  • Another participant proposes using the Hamilton-Jacobi approach to relate the wave function to the classical Lagrangian, suggesting a specific form for the wave function.
  • One participant attempts to derive a relationship involving the mass term and kinetic energy, but expresses uncertainty about the validity of their steps.
  • Another participant questions the derivation of a specific equality related to the mass term, indicating a need for clarification on that crucial step.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to transition from the QED Lagrangian to the classical Lagrangian. Multiple competing views and approaches are presented, with ongoing uncertainty about specific mathematical steps and their implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their derivations, particularly regarding the treatment of the mass term and the assumptions made in transitioning from quantum to classical formulations. There are unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on definitions that affect the clarity of the discussion.

Ben Niehoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
170
I have some confusion as to how to get from the QED Lagrangian to ordinary electrodynamics. Beginning with the QED Lagrangian (density):

\mathcal L = \bar{\psi} (i\gamma^{\mu} D_{\mu} - m) \psi - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}

I expand the covariant derivative D = \partial - iqA[/tex] to obtain<br /> <br /> \mathcal L = \bar{\psi} i\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi + q \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi A_{\mu} - m \bar{\psi} \psi - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}<br /> <br /> From here, one can either add a total divergence, or take the sum<br /> <br /> \frac12 (\mathcal L + \mathcal L^{\dagger}) = \frac12 \bar{\psi} i \gamma^{\mu} \overleftrightarrow{\partial_{\mu}} \psi + q \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi A_{\mu} - m \bar{\psi} \psi - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}<br /> <br /> which I kinda like because it is more symmetrical. Anyway, using gauge invariance and Noether&#039;s theorem, we can get the conserved current<br /> <br /> j^{\mu} = q \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi<br /> <br /> This couples to the EM field in the usual way,<br /> <br /> \mathcal L = j^{\mu}A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}<br /> <br /> But now the question is, how do I include the kinetic part of the Lagrangian? I would like to end up with something like<br /> <br /> \mathcal L = m \sqrt{\dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu}} + q \dot x^{\mu} A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}<br /> <br /> but I can&#039;t seem to do anything with my current j^{\mu} that resembles the kinetic part of the QED Lagrangian. The 4-divergence identically vanishes (by Noether&#039;s theorem), so the only scalar I can form is<br /> <br /> j^{\mu} j_{\mu} = q^2 (\bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi) (\bar{\psi} \gamma_{\mu} \psi)<br /> <br /> which I can&#039;t see how to simplify. Maybe I am missing something. Maybe what I am trying to do can&#039;t actually be done? Basically, I&#039;d like to rewrite the QED Lagrangian in terms of j^{\mu}, and (hopefully) recover the classical Lagrangian. Any suggestions?<br /> <br /> Edit:<br /> <br /> Ah, I see one thing I can try. I might be able to make something of it by exploiting<br /> <br /> i\partial_{\mu} = (i \partial_t, i \vec \nabla) = (E, - \vec p) = p_{\mu}<br /> <br /> I&#039;ll look into this later.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ben Niehoff said:
But now the question is, how do I include the kinetic part of the Lagrangian? I would like to end up with something like

\mathcal L = m \sqrt{\dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu}} + q \dot x^{\mu} A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}

Basically, I'd like to rewrite the QED Lagrangian in terms of j^{\mu}, and (hopefully) recover the classical Lagrangian. Any suggestions?
This is possible, but don't expect a square root. This is because we are
dealing with the Lagrangian density so all terms of the classical Lagrangian
pick up an extra gamma term due to the Lorentz contraction of the volume.

You can see this happening in equation 22.31 going to 22.32 here:

http://physics-quest.org/Book_Chapter_Lagrangian.pdf

You also might want to read section 22.3

Now, the kinetical part of the Lagrangian also represents quadratic terms
in the form of E^2 - p^2, because if you look at.

\frac12 \bar{\psi} i \gamma^{\mu} \overleftrightarrow{\partial_{\mu}} \psi

then you see that \gamma^\mu makes it a vector current {p0,px,py,pz} and the
derivative operating on the imaginary exponential then multiplies these
into a quadratic kinetic expression {p0^2-px^2-py^2-pz^2}Regards, Hans
 
Last edited:
OK, that helps, but there is still the mass term

m \bar \psi \psi

which I can't seem to do anything with. If psi is a plane wave

\psi = u(p,s) e^{-ip \cdot x}

then I get

m \bar \psi \psi = m \bar u u = \frac{m^2}{E_p}

leaving me with the Lagrangian

L = m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu} - \frac{m^2}{E_p} + q \dot x^{\mu} A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}

However, the Lagrangian I ought to be able to get is

L = \frac12 m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu} + q \dot x^{\mu} A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}

But here I'm not sure what to do. If I expand

\frac{m^2}{E_p} = \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu}}} = m \left( 1 - \frac12 \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu} + ... \right)

then I get something that is close to what I need. But it doesn't make sense that I would have to make an expansion here...

Edit: Actually, that last line is wrong. I'll fix it in a bit.
 
It seems to me that you have to try

<br /> \psi =&gt; e^{-iS(x)}<br />

as in the Hamilton-Jacoby approach.

Bob.
 
Hamilton–Jacobi equations...


The solution I derived based upon the Hamilton–Jacobi equation, specifically the Eikonal approximation and relationship to the Schrödinger equation:

S represent the phase of a wave with unitless exponential argument:
\psi = \psi_{0} e^{\frac{iS}{\hbar}}

Electrodynamic Lagrangian:
L = m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu} - m \bar \psi \psi + q \dot x^{\mu} A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}

The Lagrangian mass term Lagrangian Hamilton–Jacobi Eikonal identity:
m \bar \psi \psi = m \bar u u = \frac{m^2}{E_p} = \frac{1}{2} m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu}

Lagrangian integration by substitution:
L = m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu} - \frac{1}{2} m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu} + q \dot x^{\mu} A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}

Electrodynamic Lagrangian solution:
\boxed{L = \frac{1}{2} m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu} + q \dot x^{\mu} A_{\mu} - \frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}}

[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilt...elationship_to_the_Schr.C3.B6dinger_equation"
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Orion1 said:
The Lagrangian mass term Lagrangian Hamilton–Jacobi Eikonal identity:
m \bar \psi \psi = m \bar u u = \frac{m^2}{E_p} = \frac{1}{2} m \dot x^{\mu} \dot x_{\mu}

You lost me here. How do you establish the last equals sign? That's the crucial step.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K