Non-relativistic limit of the Lagrangian

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter befj0001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian Limit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the non-relativistic limit of a specific Lagrangian, examining why it may not yield the expected results in that limit. Participants explore the implications of proper time derivatives and covariant transformations within the context of theoretical physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the given Lagrangian does not have the correct non-relativistic limit, noting that the derivative of proper time with respect to time approaches 1.
  • One participant requests clarification on what the non-relativistic limit should be, suggesting that the expression inside the parentheses, with a minus sign, represents the classical Lagrangian.
  • A reference to an external source is provided, indicating that a similar limit is discussed there, particularly in relation to the coupling to the gauge field and its role in canceling a divergent term.
  • Another participant asserts that the Lagrangian is not covariant due to the presence of an explicit time derivative on proper time, which does not transform covariantly under coordinate transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct form of the non-relativistic limit and the covariant nature of the Lagrangian. No consensus is reached regarding the proper expression or the implications of the proper time derivative.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the definitions of the non-relativistic limit and covariant transformations, as well as unresolved aspects of the mathematical derivations involved.

befj0001
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Why does the following Lagrangian not have the correct non-relativistic limit? It is correct except for the derivative of proper time with respect time. But that factor goes to 1 so why is the expression wrong?

## L = -(\frac{1}{2}mu^{\mu}u_{\mu} + qu^{\mu}A_{\mu})\frac{d\tau}{dt} ##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
befj0001 said:
Why does the following Lagrangian not have the correct non-relativistic limit? It is correct except for the derivative of proper time with respect time. But that factor goes to 1 so why is the expression wrong?

## L = -(\frac{1}{2}mu^{\mu}u_{\mu} + qu^{\mu}A_{\mu})\frac{d\tau}{dt} ##

Could you write down what you think is the non-relativistic limit?
 
Here,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5176?context=hep-th

such a limit is taken (page 7). The coupling to the gauge field here is however to cancel a divergent term, associated to the rest energy of the particle. How does it differ from your calculation? And as Steven indicates, what do you mean by 'non-relativistic limit'?
 
stevendaryl said:
Could you write down what you think is the non-relativistic limit?

I think the relativistivictic limit should be the expression above, but only what is inside the parenteses, still with the minus sign there. That is the classical expression for the lagrangian.
 
befj0001 said:
I think the relativistivictic limit should be the expression above, but only what is inside the parenteses, still with the minus sign there. That is the classical expression for the lagrangian.

i.e., why is the lagranian in my first post not covariant?
 
It is not covariant because it contains an explicit time derivative on tau. You can check directly, by performing an explicit coord.transfo., that such a term does not transform covariantly. The terms within parentheses are covariant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
575
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K