Relativistic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian for a free particle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relativistic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian for a free particle, exploring the consistency of these formulations with classical mechanics. Participants examine the implications of the relativistic Lagrangian, particularly its negative kinetic energy, and question the applicability of classical energy relationships in a relativistic context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the consistency of the relativistic Lagrangian, L = -mc²/γ, with classical mechanics, noting it suggests negative kinetic energy.
  • Another participant explains that the momentum derived from the Lagrangian is positive for positive mass and velocity, indicating the negative sign in the Lagrangian is necessary.
  • It is noted that the Lagrangian does not yield negative kinetic energy in the non-relativistic limit, and L = T - V does not hold in relativistic mechanics.
  • A participant provides the expression for the Hamiltonian, H, derived from the Lagrangian, asserting it remains positive and represents total energy.
  • Further clarification is offered that the general relationships in Lagrangian mechanics only yield L = T - V or H = T + V under specific conditions where L is quadratic in velocity.
  • Another participant reiterates that the Hamiltonian in the relativistic case is derived from the Legendre transformation and is applicable in both relativistic and non-relativistic contexts.
  • There is a suggestion that the principle of maximal aging relates to the least-action principle in relativistic mechanics.
  • Participants express uncertainty about whether the Hamiltonian always gives the total energy in a relativistic framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that L = T - V does not apply in a relativistic context, and there is ongoing debate regarding the applicability of H = T + V and whether the Hamiltonian provides total energy in relativistic mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of classical formulations in relativistic scenarios, particularly regarding the assumptions underlying the relationships between kinetic and potential energy.

dyn
Messages
774
Reaction score
63
Hi.
I am working through a QFT book and it gives the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle as L = -mc2/γ. This doesn't seem consistent with the classical equation L = T - V as it gives a negative kinetic energy ? If L = T - V doesn't apply relativistically then why does the Hamiltonian H = T + V as the total energy still apply ? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Momentum is the partial of the Lagrangian with respect to ##\dot{x}##, which in this case would be velocity. So if you want positive momentum for a positive mass and a positive velocity, you want the negative sign in the Lagrangian - as v increases, gamma increases, and the Lagrangian becomes less negative as written, meaning the momentum is positive.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bcrowell
It does not give a negative kinetic energy. In the non-relarivistic limit you have ##-1/\gamma = -\sqrt{1-v^2}\simeq -1+v^2/2## which is just the regular classical Lagrangian up to an additive constant. L = T-V does not hold relativistically, the kinetic term is not quadratic in ##\dot x##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bcrowell
The energy function (which is the total energy, the Hamiltonian in different v) is ##v\frac{\partial L}{\partial v} - L##)
dyn said:
Hi.
I am working through a QFT book and it gives the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle as L = -mc2/γ. This doesn't seem consistent with the classical equation L = T - V as it gives a negative kinetic energy ? If L = T - V doesn't apply relativistically then why does the Hamiltonian H = T + V as the total energy still apply ? Thanks

How are you calculating the energy? Given the Lagrangian, ##L(x,\dot{x},t)## one usually uses the legendre transformation

$$H = v\,\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}} - L$$

which comes out positive and equal to $$\frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}$$
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your replies. So L = T - V does not apply relativistically. Does H = T + V apply ? If not , does H still give the total energy ?
 
dyn said:
Thanks for your replies. So L = T - V does not apply relativistically. Does H = T + V apply ? If not , does H still give the total energy ?

The general relationships for Lagranian mechanics are these:

p_\mu = \frac{\partial L}{\partial U^\mu}
H = p_\mu U^\mu - L

where U^\mu = \frac{dx^\mu}{ds}, for s the "evolution parameter" (not necessarily time--relativistically, it is often proper time). Only in the special case where L is quadratic in U^\mu (that is, L involves only zeroth, first and second powers of U^\mu) does L = T - V or H = T+V.
 
Last edited:
dyn said:
Thanks for your replies. So L = T - V does not apply relativistically. Does H = T + V apply ? If not , does H still give the total energy ?

No, H in the relativistic case is given by the Legendre transformation as in my post #4. (Which works for both relativistic and non-relativistic physics).

Basically, the least-action principle when applied relativistically results in the principle of maximal aging, see for instance http://www.eftaylor.com/leastaction.html.

[add]In other words, the expression for L is proportioanl to ##d\tau##, because ##d\tau = dt / \gamma## and ##L = -mc^2 / \gamma## and ##mc^2## is constant for a free particle.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. So neither L = T-V or H = T+V apply relativistically. But does the Hamiltonian always give the total energy ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K