I Motivation for mass term in Lagrangians

AI Thread Summary
The Lagrangian for a free scalar field includes a mass term to accurately describe massive fields and reproduce the Klein-Gordon equation. This mass term is not merely a self-interaction; it is essential for characterizing the dynamics of the field. Omitting the mass term would prevent the description of a massive field, as it influences the propagator and leads to different physical interpretations. The quadratic nature of the Lagrangian ensures linear equations of motion, allowing for superposition and non-interacting solutions. Overall, the structure of the Lagrangian is motivated by the need to align with established relativistic field theories.
Frank Castle
Messages
579
Reaction score
23
In field theory a typical Lagrangian (density) for a "free (scalar) field" ##\phi(x)## is of the form $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi -\frac{1}{2}m^{2}\phi^{2}$$ where ##m## is a parameter that we identify with the mass of the field ##\phi(x)##.

My question is, what is the motivation for including this mass term? Is it simply that in doing so one can reproduce the Klein-Gordon equation or are there some other physical arguments? Furthermore, is it in some sense a "self-interaction" term? Classically the Lagrangian of a free particle would just have a kinetic term so how does this Lagrangian describe a free field?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you do not include the mass term, you cannot describe a massive field and there is nothing forbidding its presence.

You can choose whether to include it in the free lagrangian or not. If you do it becomes part of your propagator, if you don't it becomes a (rather boring) self-energy contribution. Both approaches give the same results in the end.

Also, this is not the Lagrangian of a particle, it is the Lagrangian of a field. There are several classical situations that would lead to such a Lagrangian.
 
Orodruin said:
If you do not include the mass term, you cannot describe a massive field and there is nothing forbidding its presence.

I was just wondering if there's any motivation for why one considers a Lagrangian of this form? Is it simply because we know that a relativistic massive field should satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation and so we want to construct a Lagrangian such that the Euler-Lagrange equations reproduce it?!

Also, is the reason why free-field Lagrangians are always constructed to be quadratic because this ensures that the corresponding EOM are linear and as such the solutions satisfy the superposition principle, i.e. they are non-interacting (intuitively they "pass through" each other)?!
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top