A Lagrangian density , for scalar field , vector field and Spinor field

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of Dirac and Klein-Gordon (KG) equations from their respective Lagrangians. It highlights that these equations are often initially derived without Lagrangians, which are then guessed to match the equations. The form of the free field Lagrangian can be argued based on the requirement for it to be a Lorentz scalar, involving only the field and its first derivatives. The kinetic term is constrained by Lorentz invariance, leading to a quadratic form in the field. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes that the Lagrangian's structure is largely determined by fundamental assumptions about symmetry and renormalizability.
zaman786
Messages
31
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
how do we get starting Lagrangian density of scalar field or Dirac (Spinor_) field
hi, I have go through many books - they derive Dirac equation from Dirac Lagrangian, KG equation from scalar Lagrangian - but my question is how do we get Dirac or scalar Lagrangian at first place as our starting point - kindly help in this regard or refer some book - which clearly elaborate this-
thanks
 
  • Like
Likes sergioperezf
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually KG and Dirac equation are first "derived" without the Lagrangian, then the Lagrangian which leads to this equation is just guessed, and finally one shows that this Lagrangian really leads to this equation. See e.g. Ryder, Quantum Field Theory.
 
Demystifier said:
Usually KG and Dirac equation are first "derived" without the Lagrangian, then the Lagrangian which leads to this equation is just guessed, and finally one shows that this Lagrangian really leads to this equation. See e.g. Ryder, Quantum Field Theory.
That said, one can argue for the form of the free field Lagrangian starting from the assumption that it should be possible to write using only the field itself and its (first) derivatives and be a Lorentz scalar. Not leading to non-linearities requires the Lagrangian to be quadratic in the field and Lorentz invariance pretty much nails down the kinetic term up to a constant that can be normalized away.

Then for the interacting theory we write down pretty much all renormalizable terms allowed by Lorentz and gauge invariance.

In short, there are not many other forms the Lagrangian could take based on a few basic and relatively reasonable assumptions.
 
Thread 'Some confusion with the Binding Energy graph of atoms'
My question is about the following graph: I keep on reading that fusing atoms up until Fe-56 doesn’t cost energy and only releases binding energy. However, I understood that fusing atoms also require energy to overcome the positive charges of the protons. Where does that energy go after fusion? Does it go into the mass of the newly fused atom, escape as heat or is the released binding energy shown in the graph actually the net energy after subtracting the required fusion energy? I...