QED: Lagrangian, and Action principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the action in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), particularly whether the action is bounded from above or below. Participants explore implications of these properties for the equations of motion derived from the action principle, touching on concepts such as gauge independence and the relationship between the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the action for the free field Lagrangian in QED appears unbounded from above and below, questioning if this implies the equations of motion correspond to a saddle point.
  • Another participant seeks confirmation on whether the action is indeed unbounded, noting conflicting descriptions in literature regarding the action principle as a minimizing principle versus one that yields stationary action.
  • Speculation arises that the unbounded nature of the action might relate to gauge symmetry, with the possibility that gauge fixing could resolve this issue.
  • Counterarguments are presented regarding the independence of the action from gauge choices, emphasizing the distinction between physical and unphysical directions in variations of the action.
  • Discussion includes the idea that separating physical and unphysical contributions to the action might clarify the conditions under which the action is unbounded.
  • A participant draws an analogy between the Lagrangian in QED and classical mechanics, suggesting that the Hamiltonian's boundedness from below is what ultimately matters for stability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the boundedness of the action and its implications, with no consensus reached on whether the action is unbounded or how gauge symmetry affects this property.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the relationship between gauge independence and the boundedness of the action, indicating that assumptions about physical versus unphysical directions in the action's variation remain unresolved.

JustinLevy
Messages
882
Reaction score
1
I'm probably making a mistake, but looking at the free field lagrangian for QED
\mathcal{L} \propto (-F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}) \propto (\mathbf{E}^2 - \mathbf{B}^2)
it appears to me that the action is not bounded from above, nor from below.

Does that mean the equations of motion we obtain by finding the path of extremal action is actually just a "saddle point"?

Regardless of the answer to that, what does it / would it mean for QED if the action is not bounded from below?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No one?

Can someone at least confirm that the action is not bounded from below or above? I see some books referring to the action principle as a minimizing principle, while others do comment that it is actually just the extremal/stationary action that gives the classical equations of motion. However I haven't been able to find a textbook yet that explicitly says the action is not bounded from below.

Hopefully that is an easier question, being a yes/no:
Is the action for electrodynamics indeed unbounded from below and above?
 
my speculation wouldbe the following: yes, that seems to be the case, but it could be that this obstacle is related to the gauge symmetry and disappears as soon as one fixes the gauge
 
The gauge can't affect anything because the action is gauge independent.
 
:-) That's not true.

If you vary the action in order to derive its extrema, you must distinguish between physical and unphysical directions (in the variation). Gauge fixing the action means expressing it terms of physical plus unphysical variables. The variation is taken only w.r.t. physical degrees of freedom. So it could be that if you exclude the gauge direction, the action is convex in the other, physical directions.

But I agree that this is somehow strange in QED as both E and B are manifest gauge invariant (so there are no unphysical directions in E and B).
 
Yes interaction terms like j.A are not gauge independent, yet they yield the gauge independent equations of motion for "physical" directions. But the free field term is completely gauge independent, no?

I think you are hitting upon something important here, but I am misunderstanding.

You are saying, if we could separate the terms in the action due to the unphysical pieces and the physical pieces, that it may only be the unphysical terms which allow the action to be unbounded? I don't understand how the action could be in terms of gauge independent quantities, yet the question of whether it is bounded or not is gauge dependent?
 
Yes, I agree, I think I am wrong.
 
What about the following idea:

The Lagrangian looks like E²-B²

But E² is nothing else but v² in classical mechanics; so deriving the Hamiltonian we get

E² + B²

which corresponds to

p² + V(x)

But now everything is fine, isn't it?

Look at the harmonic oscillator; again the action is not bounded from below.

Isn't this one reason why one does a Wick rotation in the path integral?
 
Okay, so the idea is that all that matters is that the Hamiltonian is bounded from below ("stable vacuum")? I guess that makes sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
943
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
975