Lagrangian and hamiltonian formalism

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism, their applications, particularly in quantum field theory (QFT), and the contexts in which each is preferred. Participants explore theoretical aspects, practical implications, and personal opinions regarding the use of these formalisms in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the differences between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms and their respective applications.
  • One participant suggests that the Lagrangian formalism is more commonly used in QFT, seeking clarification on this point.
  • Another participant argues that the Hamiltonian formalism is more natural and fundamental, linking it to principles of relativity and quantum mechanics.
  • It is noted that Lagrangian mechanics utilizes generalized coordinates, while Hamiltonian mechanics operates in phase space with generalized position and momentum variables.
  • Some participants discuss the advantages of the Lagrangian approach, such as its transparency regarding symmetries and its application in Feynman diagrams.
  • Concerns are raised about the perceived dominance of time in Hamiltonian theory, with some arguing this violates the spirit of special relativity, while others counter that this is a misunderstanding.
  • Participants express differing views on the implications of quantization in relation to time and the Hamiltonian framework, particularly in the context of gravity.
  • One participant references a textbook as a recommended resource for understanding classical mechanics and its transition to QFT.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the advantages and implications of Lagrangian versus Hamiltonian formalisms. There is no consensus on which formalism is superior or more appropriate in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions highlight limitations in understanding, such as the need for clarity on the level of study when discussing complex topics. There are also unresolved questions about the physical significance of fields and actions in the context of QFT.

captain
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
what is the difference between these two formalism and when are each used? also is it true the lagrangian formalism is used more in qft, if so i am curious to know why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, have you studied them yet? It's good to know at what level the answer is going to be...
 
you need to be more respectful

genneth said:
Well, have you studied them yet? It's good to know at what level the answer is going to be...

that is rude. He only asked a question. what is it with this board.?
is this board some kind of pissing contest?
 
melrose said:
that is rude. He only asked a question. what is it with this board.?
is this board some kind of pissing contest?


eeh what is the matter with you? He only asked at what level he study so he can give the answer in such a way that it becomes clear. You do not explain nuclear physics to a high school kid as you would do to a course mate at final year at university..
 
melrose said:
that is rude. He only asked a question. what is it with this board.?
is this board some kind of pissing contest?

It was certainly not intended to be rude. The depth of classical mechanics gets truly dizzying at times, so it's good to know where to start. If the answer casually throws technical terms about which the questioner doesn't know, then it's hardly answered the question.
 
captain said:
lagrangian and hamiltonian formalism

what is the difference between these two formalism and when are each used? also is it true the lagrangian formalism is used more in qft, if so i am curious to know why?

I consider H.Goldstein “Classical Mechanics” the best introduction. There is 3-rd edition, but I personally prefer 2-nd, Addison-Wesley, 1980. However, as genneth pointed out, from here to QFT is long way to go.

Regards, Dany.
 
the langrangian formulation is particularly useful because it is true in generalized coordinates. remember, Newton's laws are formulated in cartesian coordinates. working problems in Newtonian mechanics in other coordinate systems may be very difficult at times, and may also give rise to fictionous forces that are not necessary. since the lagrangian formulation is coordinate system invariant, it lends itself well to tensorial quantities. the lagrangian formalism can also be very powerful since you don't need to introduce forces at all (unless you want to) if you rely upon the principle of least action.

the hamiltonian formulation is useful in formulating advanced principles of dynamics, such as the Liouville theorem, etc.
 
Lagrangian mechanics works with generalized position ("configuration") and velocity variables, leading up to a system of 2nd order differential equations.
Hamiltonian mechanics works with generalized position and momentum variables ("phase space"), leading up to a system of coupled 1st order differential equations.

In some relatively simple cases, they are equivalent by the Legendre transformations.
 
captain said:
what is the difference between these two formalism and when are each used? also is it true the lagrangian formalism is used more in qft, if so i am curious to know why?

In my opinion, the Hamiltonian formalism is more natural and fundamental. It follows immediately from the principle of relativity, the Poincare group structure, and postulates of quantum mechanics.

The Lagrangian (field) formalism was found useful in QFT. I am not sure what is the physical significance of fields, actions, Lagrangians, etc. I suspect they are just neat mathematical tricks, which allow one to construct relativistically invariant Hamiltonians in QFT.

I know that my point of view is controversial. However, you can check S. Weinberg
"The quantum theory of fields", vol. 1 and see that I am not so far off. His entire logic is based on the premise of the supremacy of Hamiltonians.

Eugene.
 
  • #10
The relationship to quantum theory is also fun. Hamiltonian approach is what we usually take, where we "quantize" the position and momenta by lifting them to be operators, and finding a decent representation of them over some Hilbert space. The Lagrangian approach turns into a sum-over-paths approach, which is nice and intuitive: the probability amplitude is the sum of the exponential of [tex]i[/tex] times the classical action.

You've probably heard of the Lagrangian approach used in QFT, where we calculate the motion and interactions of particles by summing up all the possibilities, using Feynman diagrams.

An advantage of the Lagrangian approach is that it is often transparent what symmetries are present, so it becomes easier to find theories which follow special relativity, for example. In the Hamiltonian theory (as you would find in textbooks, at least), time tends to play a dominating role, which is in violation of the spirit of special relativity.
 
  • #11
genneth said:
In the Hamiltonian theory (as you would find in textbooks, at least), time tends to play a dominating role, which is in violation of the spirit of special relativity.

This assertion is often repeated in textbooks. However, I think it is based on a misunderstanding of the true spirit of relativity. The most fundamental requirement imposed by relativity on quantum theories is that "the Hilbert space of the system must carry an unitary representation of the Poincare group". The Hamiltonian approach is perfectly consistent with this requirement. Actually, the Hamiltonian is just a generator of time translations in this representation. So, there is no inconsistency between the Hamiltonian theory and (correctly understood) relativity.

It is true that in quantum mechanics time t is a classical parameter and position x is described by a quantum operator. So, there is formal disagreement with Einstein's special relativity which declares the equivalence of t and x. However, this declaration of x-t equivalence is, actually, an assumption rather than a rigorously proven fact.

This is my personal view, which is not shared, as far as I can tell, by anybody else. So, I'll stop here. If you are interested, we can discuss these points further.

Eugene.
 
  • #12
There is no violation of special relativity perse with the Hamiltonian framework, but yes it does in a sense violate 'the spirit'. You lose manifest lorentz invariance, even though its still there deep down (embedded into the core of the theory). That shouldn't bother anyone really.

Quantization with parameter time isn't really a problem until you start playing around with gravity or certain very specific examples. There things get much more subtle (the dynamics are not in the actual hamiltonian, which is identically zero, but in the so called Hamiltonian constraint). Technical problems quickly arise. However, even in those situations, you are ok if you proceed with caution, but you will have to set up a regularization at one point.
 
  • #14
i would like to thank all contributors to this discussion
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Why does the QFT Lagrangian not already use operators?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Two-electron Lagrangian in QED
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Deriving the Lagrangian from the Hamiltonian operator
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Hamiltonian in QM for QFT forces/fields effects
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Graduate Lagrangian explicitly preserves symmetries of a theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Why the second quantization Hamiltonian works?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Separable Hamiltonian for central potential
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Graduate Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian: Where did the time dependence go?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Field Renormalization vs. Interaction Picture
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
Graduate Importance of constrained Hamilton dynamics and BRST transformations
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K