Hi,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

As argued in Jackson p. 580, the quantity [tex] \gamma L [/tex] is invariant. So imagine a free particle. In the particle's frame, the particle can be treated non-relativistically since its v << c (it's zero). But non-relativistically we define the [tex] L = T - V [/tex]. In the particle's frame, this is zero. So invariance would say L would be zero in all frames.

I think the way out of this is to argue that we can only define a Lagrangian up to a total time derivative of some function. In this case the function is [tex] -t mc^2 [/tex]. Consequently, in the particle's frame [tex] L = T - V - mc^2 [/tex]. Doing this we get the the standard relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle.

My Questions:

Why is the added function mc^2? This argument seems rather ad hoc. Also, in introductory physics courses why don't we just define the Lagrangian as [tex] L = T - V - mc^2 [/tex]. Thanks.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Relativistic Lagrangian of a Free Particle

Loading...

Similar Threads for Relativistic Lagrangian Free | Date |
---|---|

I Relativistic point particle Lagrangian | Jan 29, 2017 |

I Non-relativistic limit of the Lagrangian | Feb 21, 2016 |

Relativistic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian for a free particle | Nov 24, 2015 |

Isn't working with the relativistic Lagrangian AWFUL? | Dec 3, 2009 |

The relativistic Lagrangian | Nov 26, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**