Lagrangian vs. Hamiltonian in QFT

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between the Lorentz invariance of the Lagrangian and the non-invariance of the Hamiltonian in Quantum Field Theory (QFT). The Lagrangian density is Lorentz invariant due to its scalar nature, meaning all Lorentz indices are contracted. In contrast, the Hamiltonian, which represents total energy and is a component of the 4-momentum, does not maintain this invariance under Lorentz transformations. The conversation emphasizes that while mass is invariant, energy is not, highlighting the complexity of these concepts in relativistic frameworks.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) principles
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations and invariance
  • Knowledge of scalar and vector quantities in physics
  • Basic concepts of 4-momentum and energy-momentum relations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Lorentz invariance in Lagrangian mechanics
  • Explore the role of the Hamiltonian in canonical formulations of QFT
  • Learn about the Poincaré algebra and its implications in relativistic physics
  • Investigate the relationship between energy, mass, and momentum in relativistic contexts
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of Quantum Field Theory, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of relativistic mechanics and field theories.

copernicus1
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
I'm a little confused about why the Lagrangian is Lorentz invariant and the Hamiltonian is not. I keep reading that the Lagrangian is "obviously" Lorentz invariant because it's a scalar, but isn't the Hamiltonian a scalar also?

I've been thinking this issue must be somewhat more complex, because mass is an invariant between frames, and it's a scalar, but energy obviously isn't invariant, and it's a scalar too, so I guess I'm missing something. Is it related to the fact that energy is a component of the 4-momentum?

Any help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The hamiltonian is the time component of the energy-momentum four-vector; hence it is not Lorentz invariant.

In QFT, the action is Lorentz invariant, and the lagrangian density is Lorentz invariant, but the lagrangian itself is not. (In QFT books, "lagrangian" often really means "lagrangian density".)
 
copernicus1 said:
I'm a little confused about why the Lagrangian is Lorentz invariant and the Hamiltonian is not. I keep reading that the Lagrangian is "obviously" Lorentz invariant because it's a scalar, but isn't the Hamiltonian a scalar also?

Not in the sense that is meant here. I believe you're taking "scalar" to mean "single-component object." But almost always in QFT, "scalar" means "Lorentz scalar," i.e., "object that is invariant under Lorentz transformations." So isn't saying that "the Lagrangian density is Lorentz invariant because it is a scalar" circular? What people mean here is: "look at our form for the Lagrangian density. All the Lorentz indices are contracted. Therefore this thing is invariant under Lorentz transformations."

Similarly, "vector" in QFT almost always means "4-vector," an object with specific transformation rules under Lorentz transformations.

copernicus1 said:
I've been thinking this issue must be somewhat more complex, because mass is an invariant between frames, and it's a scalar, but energy obviously isn't invariant, and it's a scalar too, so I guess I'm missing something. Is it related to the fact that energy is a component of the 4-momentum?

Right; the Hamiltonian is the total energy, which is a component of the 4-momentum, which changes under Lorentz transformations, i.e., is not a scalar in the QFT sense. In relativistic field theory, we say, "the Hamiltonian is not a scalar: it is the zeroth component of a vector."
 
To show that a theory in canonical i.e. Hamiltonmian formulation is Lorentz-invariant requires some work: in addition to the Hamiltonian H = P° the other components Pi as well as the generators of the Lorentz group Li (angular momentum - rotations) and Ki (boosts) have to be constructed. In addition it has to be shown that these objects fulfil the required Poincare operator algebra.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K