Lorentz invariant lagrangian density

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Lorentz-invariant Lagrangian density, exploring its theoretical foundations and seeking simpler derivations. Participants express varying levels of familiarity with Lagrangian and field theory, with some looking for intuitive approaches while others suggest more formal methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Lorentz-invariant Lagrangian is often assumed or derived from experimental observations rather than derived in a straightforward manner.
  • Another suggests a method of deriving the Lagrangian by starting with a dispersion relation and transforming it into a wave equation, emphasizing the need for the fields to be scalars for Lorentz invariance.
  • A different approach is proposed, focusing on constructing a Lagrangian that is a Lorentz scalar, using the scalar field and its derivatives to form invariant objects.
  • One participant expresses interest in a derivation that begins with the Lorentz group and seeks all Lagrangians invariant under its transformations, indicating a desire for a more rigorous theoretical framework.
  • There is a discussion about recommended textbooks for further study in classical and quantum field theory, with specific titles mentioned as potentially useful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a single method for deriving the Lorentz-invariant Lagrangian density, with multiple approaches and perspectives presented. Some express a preference for simpler derivations, while others advocate for more formal methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the derivation of the Lagrangian may depend on the specific fields being considered and that there are many possible forms of the Lagrangian based on different assumptions and experimental inputs.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers interested in the foundations of Lagrangian mechanics, field theory, and those seeking to understand the implications of Lorentz invariance in theoretical physics.

naos
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Would someone know where I can find a derivation of the lorentz-invariant lagrangian density?
This lagrangian often pops-up in books and papers and they take it for granted, but I was actually wondering if there's a "simple" derivation somewhere... Or does it take a whole theory and tens of pages to get there?

As a reminder, it can be found on slide 5 of this paper:
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~dermisek/QFT_08/qft-I-2-1p.pdf

Sorry for this question, I'm pretty new in Lagrangian and field theory (come from maths)...

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not so much derived as it is assumed or obtained from experiment, but here is one simple route.

In relativity we want a dispersion relation like [tex]E^2 = p^2 + m^2[/tex] with energy E and momentum p. Combining this with quantum mechanics we replace [tex]E \rightarrow i \partial_t[/tex] and [tex]p \rightarrow -i \partial_x[/tex] and demand our fields satisfy an equation of motion like [tex](-\partial_t^2 + \partial_x^2 - m^2 ) \phi = 0[/tex]. This equation is Lorentz invariant provided [tex]\phi[/tex] is a scalar. Now just look for a Lagrangian that gives this equation of motion and then you have what you were looking for. There are plenty of more sophisticated points of view, but I think this one is nice and direct.

Hope this helps.
 
Maybe take this approach- we want to build a lagrangian that is a Lorentz scalar. Now, the lagrangian we build depends on the fields we are working with. The slide you posted has a scalar field [tex]\phi[/tex], since this is already a lorentz scalar, any function [tex]f\left(\phi\right)[/tex] is also lorentz invariant.

The other object we have to work with is [tex]\partial_\mu \phi[/tex], that transforms as a vector. We can build an invariant object out of two of them. [tex]\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi[/tex]. So our lagrangian could be [tex]\mathcal{L} = f'\left(\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi, \phi\right)[/tex]. Now, we can write an infinite number of terms in the theory, but when you learn about renormalization you'll discover that at long wavelengths, we only have to consider the lowest order terms.

[tex]\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2-\frac{1}{4!}\phi^4[/tex]

Think of m and lambda as constants to be decided by experiment.
 
Thank you for your answers!

Renormalization is a bit far from now, but I have a feeling that'll be an elegant approach. Thank for that. I definitely like the simple approach you're having, Physics Monkey, although it looks like a baking recipe ;)

In addition to those proofs, would you know if there's one which goes from a study of the lorentz group, then look for all Lagrangians which are invariant under any transformation belonging to that group? For instance, it could be an analysis of a particular and simpler case, leading to the correct form, then using physics' arguments for a generalization.

Also, I'm currently reading the book of W. N. Cottingham on Standard Model (ISBN 0521852498) and I think I'm going to need another book on classical and quantum field theory. Which one would you recommend me? Apparently, the one from Tai Kai Ng (Introduction to classical and quantum field theory) seems to be good and cover what my needs (basics field theory and their quantization). What do you think?

Thanks
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K