The Lagrangian of a free particle ##L=-m \, ds/dt##

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kostik
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Lagrangian formulation for a free particle as proposed by Dirac in his "General Theory of Relativity," specifically the expression $$L=-m\frac{ds}{dt}$$. Dirac's derivation assumes flat spacetime and leads to the conclusion that the relativistic 4-momentum $$p^k$$ is defined as $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}^k}$$. The conversation critiques Dirac's reasoning, suggesting that he relies on circular logic without adequately addressing the transition from non-relativistic to relativistic formulations. The consensus is that to validate the coefficient $$\kappa$$, one must revert to the non-relativistic case where $$L = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$$.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with special relativity concepts
  • Knowledge of 4-momentum in relativistic physics
  • Basic calculus, particularly partial derivatives
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Lagrangian for relativistic particles
  • Learn about the transition from Lagrangian to Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Explore the implications of flat spacetime in relativistic physics
  • Investigate the relationship between kinetic energy and Lagrangian formulations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the foundations of Lagrangian mechanics and its application in special relativity.

Kostik
Messages
274
Reaction score
32
TL;DR
How to show that ##L=-m \, ds/dt## for a free particle.
In Dirac's "General Theory of Relativity" (p. 52), he postulates that the action for a free particle of mass ##m## is $$I=-m \int ds$$ hence the Lagrangian is $$L=-m\frac{ds}{dt} = -m\frac{\sqrt{\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu}}{dt}
\, .$$ To confirm that ##-m## is the correct coefficient, he assumes flat spacetime (special relativity) and calculates $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}^k} = -m\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{x}^k}\left( \frac{ds}{dt}\right) = m\frac{ \dot{x}^k }{ ds/dt } = m \frac{dx^k}{ds}$$ which is the correct formula for relativistic 4-momentum ##p^k##. ("As it ought to be", says Dirac.)

##\qquad## But doesn't this assume that $$p^k = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}^k} \quad ?$$ This is true for the non-relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle $$L=T-U = \frac{1}{2}mv^2 \qquad (*)$$ but is it true for a relativistic particle?

##\qquad## (Landau-Lifshitz give what seems to be a more convincing confirmation. They also postulate that ##L= \kappa \, ds/dt##, and assume flat spacetime (special relativity) where ##ds^2 = \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu##. Then $$L=\kappa \frac{ds}{dt}=\kappa \sqrt{1-v^2} \, .$$ Hence, for velocities ##v \ll 1##, we have $$L = \kappa - \frac{1}{2}\kappa v^2 + O(v^4) \, .$$ The nonrelativistic Lagrangian is shown above in ##(*)##, so to get the correct kinetic energy term, we must have ##\kappa = -m##.)

##\qquad## I'd like to understand Dirac's confirmation that ##\kappa = -m##. How does he know in advance that $$p^k = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}^k} $$ for a relativistic particle? It seems like he's using circular reasoning.

##\qquad## I think what Dirac forgot to add was "Since ##p^k = \partial L / \partial \dot{x}^k## in the case ##v \ll 1##, we see that ##\kappa = -m##."
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
IIRC, Dirac uses Greek for 0-3, while Latin for 1-3, unlike L-L who use Greek for 1-3, and Latin for 0-3.

So if we try to switch from the Lagrangian density \mathcal{L} to the Hamiltonian formalism, we define the 4-momentum as

\begin{equation} p_\mu =: \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} \left(x,\dot{x}\right)}{\partial \dot{x}^\mu}\end{equation},

where the dot is the worldline parameter (most commonly chosen as the proper time).

Why would going Greek > Latin be circular reasoning?
 
I think it's circular reasoning because ##p^k = \partial L / \partial \dot{x}^k## is derived for a non-relativistic free particle, where ##L=mv^2/2##. But, otherwise, ##p^k \equiv \partial L / \partial \dot{x}^k## is the definition of the "conjugate momentum". We cannot simultaneously define ##p^k \equiv \partial L / \partial \dot{x}^k## and ##p^k \equiv m\, dx^k/ds = mv^k##.

I think Dirac needs to reduce to the non-relativistic case (like L-L) in order to determine ##\kappa##.

##\qquad## I think what Dirac should have done is this: Consider the case ##v \ll 1##, where ##L = T = mv^2/2##. Then we confirm by calculation that $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}^k} = \frac{m}{2}\frac{\partial v^2}{\partial \dot{x}^k}=m\dot{x}^k \,. $$ Comparing this with $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}^k} = -\kappa \frac{dx^k}{ds} $$ and using ##ds=dt## when ##v \ll 1##, we obtain ##\kappa = -m##.
 
Last edited:
Kostik said:
TL;DR Summary: How to show that ##L=-m \, ds/dt## for a free particle.

But doesn't this assume that pk=∂L∂x˙k? This is true for the non-relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle
This is also true for SR Lagrangian. For SR Lagrangian pk has the factor \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} as we see in experiments. Analytical mechanics holds also in special relativity only by changing the Lagrangian functions.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
448
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
702
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K