Why does field Lagrangian depend on four-derivative?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dixanadu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dependence of the Lagrangian density in field theory on four-derivatives, specifically questioning why it includes terms like \(\partial_{\mu}\varphi\) rather than just \(\partial_{t}\varphi\). The scope includes theoretical aspects of classical and field Lagrangians.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that in classical mechanics, the Lagrangian is a function of position and velocity, while in field theory, it depends on the field and its four-gradient.
  • Another participant asserts that the four-gradient is necessary for Lorentz invariance, implying that derivative terms must involve the full four-gradient rather than just the time derivative.
  • A participant questions the correctness of the initial claim regarding the relationship between the four-gradient and spatial derivatives, seeking clarification on whether the sign or the concept itself is incorrect.
  • Further clarification is provided that the partial derivative with Greek subscripts refers to derivatives with respect to all spacetime coordinates, not just time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the initial claim regarding the nature of the four-gradient and its relationship to spatial derivatives, indicating that there is no consensus on this point.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the interpretation of the four-gradient and its implications for Lorentz invariance, as well as the correctness of the initial formulation regarding the relationship between derivatives.

Dixanadu
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Hi guys, so this is a pretty generic question.

Starting off with the classical Lagrangian in a case where there is no interaction or explicit time dependence, the functional form is

L=L(x,\dot{x})=L(x,\partial_{t}x).

Now when we look at the Lagrangian density in field theory, the functional dependence is

\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}(\varphi,\partial_{\mu}\varphi).

And there's my question. Why does the Lagrangian density depend on \partial_{\mu}\varphi and not only \partial_{t}\varphi? i mean why the four-derivative?

I have a few ideas but I'm not sure if they are correct. I'm thinking along the lines that since \partial_{\mu} = \nabla + \partial_{t}, maybe the \partial_{\mu} just appears to merge the two together and make it more compact as this one term includes possible interactions and also the field velocity?

Please help! thank you :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dixanadu said:
\partial_{\mu} = \nabla + \partial_{t}

That's not true.
The field is assumed to be lorentz invariant, hence derivative terms must be built out of scalars involving the whole four-gradient. (e.g. box operator).
 
Okay thank you :) I do have a question though - why is it wrong? is the sign of the nabla meant to be negative or is it just completely wrong?
 
Dixanadu said:
Okay thank you :) I do have a question though - why is it wrong? is the sign of the nabla meant to be negative or is it just completely wrong?

Didn't see this sorry.
The partial derivative with the greek subscript just refers a derivative with respect to x,y,z or t.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K