Lagrangian Explained: T-V Meaning & Time Integration

  • Thread starter Thread starter gulsen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the physical interpretation of the Lagrangian, represented as L = T - V, and its time integral, questioning what is being minimized in this context. It emphasizes that the Lagrangian is not a conserved quantity like energy but is tied to the variational principle of least action, which describes how nature operates economically. The relationship between the Lagrangian and action is highlighted, particularly its connection to quantum mechanics, suggesting that variational principles are foundational in both classical and quantum physics. Furthermore, the conversation touches on the philosophical aspect of "meaning" in physics, proposing that it is derived from the relationships between concepts rather than existing independently. Ultimately, the discussion raises intriguing points about the nature of information in physics and its connection to variational principles.
gulsen
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
I've been thinking on it for a while, and can't find a satisfying argument. What would L=T-V mean physically? And what would it's time integral mean? What (physically what) are we minimizing?

Following Feynman, it should be explained at freshmen level if we have understood it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gulsen,

First, what's the meaning of "meaning"?
Do you want to understand how to use it?
Do you want to know why is physics like that?

By analogy, how would you answer the question "what is energy"?
Is energy a conserved quantity: that's not enough to define it.
Is energy the quantity conserved for a time-shift symmetric system: that's enough to define it, but are you happy with this meaning?

Note here that the Lagrangian is not a conserved quantity like energy.
Its meaning doesn't appear in a conservation law.
Rather, it appears in a "variational law" called the "least action principle".
Physics can be described (partly) by conservation principles: energy, momentum, ...
Alternatively, it can be described by (more general) variational principles: just as if nature was based on a kind of 'economical' principle.

I think that the meaning of a concept in physics lies only in its relation to other concepts. There is no "out of the box" understanding that would provide an all-encompassing meaning. There are still irreductible concepts.

Nevertheless a "strong meaning" to the lagragian is given by its relation to the action and the relation of action with quantum mechanics. The action is the quantity that is extremised by the actual path of particule in between two points. This was discovered a long a long time ago and derived from the more 'pictural' basis of classical mechanics (usual forces and Newton laws). It is striking that this was discovered much before quantum mechanics was discovered, a sort of scientific miracle.

You will find easily on the web the link between the least action principle and quantum mechanics. As a matter of fact, the principle of least action results from quantum mechanics approaching classical mechanics when the wavelengths of the wave-functions become 'small' (the object becoming "large"!). We may call that a meaning, since this shows that the Lagragian is related to the phases of the wavefunctions when wavelengths become very small.

But the best reading for that is Feynman ...

But note an even more striking fact: variational principles don't only explain the structure of classical mechanics by its quantum legacy, it appears that variational principles are also within the structure of quantum mechanics itself.

And now a more speculative point of view:

Row Frieden speculated that the appearance of variational principles everywhere in physics has a fundamental reason: the information that can be obtained on a system need an interaction. Therefore, information cannot be considered as independent from physics itself, and this is reflected in the law of physics by the variational principles. It should be no surprise then that Roy Frieden gives a new meaning to the Lagrangian and also to the two terms of the Lagragian. Unfortunaly I got the impression that this new theory doesn't contribute yet to physics, it is more like an interpretation.

But is "meaning" not a synonim for "interpretation" ?
 
Last edited:
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...

Similar threads

Back
Top