0
$\begingroup$

I was reading volume two in Landau and Lifshitz's Course of Theoretical Physics (The Classical Theory of Fields). In it, Dr. Landau develops the relativistic Lagrangian as follows: one has $$S=\alpha\int\mathrm{d}s=\int \mathrm{d}t \;L$$ where $\alpha$ is an arbitrary constant. Now, from the Minkowski metric ($\mathrm{d}s^2=c^2\mathrm{d}t^2-\mathrm{d}x^2-\mathrm{d}y^2-\mathrm{d}z^2$) one has $$S=\alpha\int\mathrm{d}s=\alpha\int\mathrm{d}t\,\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}t}=\alpha c\int\mathrm{d}t\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$ where one can identify the Lagrangian as $L=\alpha c\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$. Expanding this to first order and comparing to the classical case allows one to find $L=-mc^2\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$. This is the correct Lagrangian! My question is, why does this not work for normal classical mechanics? We have a metric $\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{d}x^2+\mathrm{d}y^2+\mathrm{d}z^2$, so following similar steps, we have $$S=\alpha\int\mathrm{d}s=\alpha\int\mathrm{d}t\,\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}t}=\alpha\int\mathrm{d}t \sqrt{\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{v}}$$ which is clearly incorrect. Why?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Action is something you want to minimize to get the equations of motion. Here, I explained why relativistic action, with the Lagrangian that you gave, is a sensible one - if you minimize it you will get equations of motion for a free particle. What makes you thing that your 'classical Lagrangian' is a sensible choice? Also,non-relativistic limit is usually $c\to\infty$. This is not what you did for your 'classical action' $\endgroup$
    – Cryo
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 22:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Cryo Thanks for your comment. I don't think that that's a sensible Lagrangian at all; I'm curious as to why using a similar process with the Euclidean metric produces a nonsensical result. Also, I can't just send $c\to\infty$ to get a new metric; as you know, classical mechanics is defined on a Euclidean space with metric noted above and having time as a parameter, not as a 4-manifold. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 22:13
  • $\begingroup$ I guess my answer would be that the reason I would accept the relativistic action is because it makes sense to minimize it (based on my post). I cannot build such argument for classical action, so I would not be able to 'use a similar process'. $\endgroup$
    – Cryo
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 22:23

0