Is it possible to derive action principle #2 from QM?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter straycat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the possibility of deriving "action principle #2," which relates to general relativity (GR), from quantum mechanics (QM) through the Feynman path integral (FPI) approach. Participants explore the connections between Hamilton's principle of least action, Newtonian mechanics, and the action principles associated with GR, examining the implications of these relationships within theoretical physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Hamilton's principle of least action can be derived from the Feynman path integral technique, suggesting a pathway from QM to Newtonian mechanics.
  • Others propose that Einstein's equations of general relativity can similarly be derived from an action principle, referred to as "action principle #2," which involves a four-dimensional volume integral of a Lagrangian density.
  • One participant argues that the Feynman path integral itself does not serve as a derivation of the principle of least action but rather as a tool in quantum field theory, emphasizing the historical context of its development.
  • Another participant contends that the classical limit of the Feynman path integral leads to the action principle, regardless of the historical development of these concepts.
  • There is a discussion about the equivalence of one-dimensional and four-dimensional integrals in the context of action, with some participants questioning how these integrals relate to each other conceptually.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about whether it is possible to derive "action principle #2" from QM, noting that they have not encountered claims supporting this possibility.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether "action principle #2" can be derived from QM. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the relationships between the principles of action and their derivations from quantum mechanics and classical mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the complexity of transitioning from Lagrangian to Lagrangian density, indicating that the variation of a four-dimensional volume may involve more intricate considerations than varying a one-dimensional path.

  • #31
straycat said:
Wiki says the same thing here:
I still don't see how you can equate the above two actions. The first is the action of a path, and the second is the action of a field. That's pretty much what you say here:

If I take the total mass of a body m, I can express it as the integral over the volume of the body of the mass density. It's the same here: I'm integrating some quantity over the region of space that we're interested into get our Lagrangian. For this reason we call it the Lagrangian density. If I then integrate the mass over some time contour, I'm integrating the mass-density over a four volume. This is an analogous situation to what's causing you problems, but there's nothing wrong with doing it, as the previous example shows.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
straycat said:
that in QFT we assume from the outset the action principle, and the action principle implies Einstein's equation, which means we are assuming Lorentz covariance from the beginning.
David

In elementary formulations of field theory it is indeed assumed. We begin with a classical field, by classical we mean unquantised, and a dynamical equation or a Lagrangian density. In the field theory of the Klein-Gordon and Dirac fields we start with a field equation and then find a Lagrangian density that gives this equation using least action. In general, one begins with a Lagrangian density then constructs the field equations, for example when one builds a general gauge invariant field theory we choose appropriately amicable terms to construct the Lagrangian. We only had the field equations for Dirac and Klein-Gordon first because they both came from the relativistic equation for energy.

In second or cannonical quantisation one would then go about deciding upon a solution for the classical fields of the field equations in terms of operators etc. For this reason the field equations are useful and least action is important. From this method of quantisation propagation amplitudes and all the rules and properties for the field theory follow.

However in the Feynman path integral approach we needn't assume least action to be able to quantise the field theory, all we need do is make the jump from the classical fields to opertors on Hilbert space and have ourselves a Lagrangian. The Feynman rules then follow.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K