I Is Relativistic Action for a beam of light = zero?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the action for a beam of light, under the relativistic definition, is always zero. Participants debate the significance of the numeric value of action, questioning its relevance in the context of electromagnetic (EM) fields derived from Maxwell's Equations. It is noted that the Lagrangian Density for an electromagnetic plane wave can be zero, but adding a constant does not alter the equations of motion. The conversation emphasizes that Maxwell's Equations and their derived Lagrangian are inherently relativistic and Lorentz invariant. Ultimately, the question of the action's value in this context remains a point of contention.
LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
357
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
Under the RELATIVISTIC definition of Action, is the Action for a free photon always zero?
Under the RELATIVISTIC definition of Action, is the Action for a beam of light always zero?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LarryS said:
Under the RELATIVISTIC definition of Action, is the Action for a beam of light always zero?
What do you think the "RELATIVISTIC definition of Action" (not sure why you felt it necessary to shout) is? Have you tried looking in any textbooks or other references?
 
Let's take a step back. Sans shouting. What makes you think the numeric value of the action has any meaning whatsoever?
 
The Lagrangian Density for the EM field can be derived from Maxwell's Equations (via the EM Field Tensor). Also, from Maxwell's Equations, the electric and magnetic energy densities of an EM plane wave are equal. So, if you focus only on the EM plane wave, the Lagrangian Density for that would be identically zero. Or, am I not seeing something?
 
How would the equations of motion change if you added a constant to the Lagrangian?

When you answer "not at all", the next question is "then how can the numeric value matter?"
 
LarryS said:
The Lagrangian Density for the EM field can be derived from Maxwell's Equations (via the EM Field Tensor).
Actually, it's the other way around: Maxwell's Equations are the Euler-Lagrange equations for the EM field Lagrangian.

LarryS said:
from Maxwell's Equations, the electric and magnetic energy densities of an EM plane wave are equal
More precisely, a source-free EM plane wave.

LarryS said:
if you focus only on the EM plane wave, the Lagrangian Density for that would be identically zero.
Unless, as @Vanadium 50 says, you add an arbitrary constant, which has no effect on the equations of motion.

However, if we leave that aside, what, exactly, remains unanswered from your original question? Do you realize that Maxwell's Equations, and the Lagrangian they are derived from, are relativistic? That is, they are Lorentz invariant?
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
995
Replies
26
Views
2K