Lorentz Invariance of Lagrangian: Proof & Explanation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gaussian97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Invariance Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions for Lorentz invariance of a Lagrangian density, specifically addressing whether a Lagrangian can include second or higher derivatives. Participants explore examples, seek proofs, and discuss implications in the context of theoretical physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assertion that a Lagrangian density cannot have second or higher derivatives for Lorentz invariance, citing the Klein-Gordon Lagrangian as a counterexample.
  • Another participant asserts that it is not true that Lorentz-invariant Lagrangians must avoid higher-order derivatives, referencing the equations of motion.
  • Several participants provide the Klein-Gordon Lagrangian as an example that involves only first-order derivatives, suggesting it is equivalent to the form presented by the original poster through partial integration.
  • A suggestion is made to explore the action of a nonrelativistic point particle to investigate the types of actions possible and the implications of derivative order and boundary conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the necessity of avoiding higher-order derivatives for Lorentz invariance. Multiple competing views remain on this topic, with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific definitions of Lorentz invariance and the treatment of derivatives in Lagrangian formulations, which may not be universally agreed upon. The discussion also touches on the implications of boundary conditions in the context of different physical scenarios.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in theoretical physics, particularly those studying Lagrangian mechanics, Lorentz invariance, and field theory may find this discussion relevant.

Gaussian97
Homework Helper
Messages
683
Reaction score
412
TL;DR
I've just read that for a Lagrangian to be Lorentz Invariant the Lagrangian density cannot have second or higher derivatives.
Last day in class, a professor told us that, for a Lagrangian to be Lorentz Invariant, the Lagrangian density cannot have second or higher derivatives. Is this true?
Because one can write the KG lagrangian as $$\mathscr{L}=\phi(\square + m^2)\phi,$$ which have second derivatives.

And, where can I find a proof of this fact?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"I've just read..." where?

It's simply not true. You can perfectly write down Lorentz-covariant terms with higher order derivatives (e.g. look at the equations of motion, as you mention!)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and vanhees71
Gaussian97 said:
Summary:: I've just read that for a Lagrangian to be Lorentz Invariant the Lagrangian density cannot have second or higher derivatives.

Last day in class, a professor told us that, for a Lagrangian to be Lorentz Invariant, the Lagrangian density cannot have second or higher derivatives. Is this true?
Because one can write the KG lagrangian as $$\mathscr{L}=\phi(\square + m^2)\phi,$$ which have second derivatives.

And, where can I find a proof of this fact?

Thank you

The Lagrangian density for the Klein-Gordon equation is
$$\mathscr{L} = \frac 1 2 (\partial_{\mu} \phi)^2 - \frac 1 2 m^2\phi^2$$
Which involves only first-order derivatives.
 
PeroK said:
The Lagrangian density for the Klein-Gordon equation is
$$\mathscr{L} = \frac 1 2 (\partial_{\mu} \phi)^2 - \frac 1 2 m^2\phi^2$$
Which involves only first-order derivatives.
Which is equivalent to the Lagrangian given by the OP by partial integration (and up to multiplication by a constant).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
What could help is to play around with the action of a nonrelativistic point particle, what kind of actions are possible, what the order of derivatives is and what kind of boundary conditions you need.

Just write down (via an inner priduct) some invariant combinations of the position, velocity, acceleration etc. and see what you get upon varying.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K