Ask Question

Is there a mathematical reason for the Lagrangian to be Lorentz

invariant?
Asked 7 years, 9 months ago Modified 4 years, 11 months ago Viewed 5k times

The Hamiltonian is the energy, which is just one component of a four-vector and therefore
not Lorentz invariant.
24
The Lagrangian is the Legendre transform of the Hamiltonian and I was wondering if there is
some good reason why we get through the Legendre transform something invariant?

5 special-relativity lagrangian-formalism symmetry hamiltonian-formalism

Share Cite Improve this question Follow edited Jan 15, 2015 at 9:38 asked Dec 1, 2014 at 15:52
Qmechanic ♦ Tim
174k 34 440 1999 1,762 12 28

Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/78508/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/21866/2451 and

links therein. – Qmechanic ♦ Dec 1, 2014 at 21:33

Add a comment

Sorted by:
3 Answers Highest score (default)

The previous answer is very good, but I think can be simplified a bit.

8 In particle mechanics, the Lagrangian is So let's look at this in special relativity. We get, with , ,
and , It's not that is a scalar (which is what I thought originally), but that is a scalar. And this is
easy, because where is the proper time. This integral is clearly invariant, as we should wish for
the action.

Share Cite Improve this answer Follow

answered Oct 24, 2017 at 14:37
David Derbes
81 1 1
Add a comment

The Lagrangian is what is integrated over spacetime in the action, i.e. has to be a 4-form. As
such, it is necessarily a (pseudo-)scalar under Lorentz transformations.
5
When wondering about Lorentz transformations and such, the Hamiltonian is, as a non-
Lorentz-covariant object, not a good starting point, by the way. It is often better to start with
Convert web pages and HTML files to PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API Printed with Pdfcrowd.com
 Lorentz covariant object, not a good starting point, by the way. It is often better to start with
the Lagrangian that makes the Lorentz covariance of the theory manifest.

Share Cite Improve this answer Follow answered Dec 1, 2014 at 15:54
ACuriousMind ♦
110k 27 236 581

2 Everything you say is correct, but unfortunately does not answer my question. I already wrote in my
question that the Hamiltonian isn't invariant and I'm aware of the fact that for example in QFT we use
the Lagrangian instead. The connection between the two is that the Lagrangian is the Legrendre
transform of the Hamiltonian. My question was/is: Why does this work? In other words: Why do we
get something invariant (the Lagrangian) from something non-invariant (the
Hamiltonian) through the Legendre transform? – Tim Dec 2, 2014 at 7:11

1 @Tim: Ah, I see. I'll think about it a bit, if I don't come up with something, I'll delete this.
– ACuriousMind ♦ Dec 2, 2014 at 9:17

3 @Tim That's the wrong way of looking at it. Here's a better way: As ACuriousMind's answer explains, the
Lagrangian must be Lorentz invariant. Once you take its Legendre transform to get a Hamiltonian, this
breaks Lorentz symmetry. Put another way: The only class of interesting Hamiltonians are the ones that
are Legendre transforms of Lorentz invariant Lagrangians. – jwimberley Jan 15, 2015 at 14:10

1 @Tim: I think almost everyone would say that the Lagrangian is the fundamental thing. When we do
time-dependent Legendre tranforms to it, it should be hardly surprising that we get non-covariant stuff
out. And the legendre transform of a general Hamiltonian is totally not Lorentz covariant.
– Jerry Schirmer Jan 15, 2015 at 14:24

@ACuriousMind can you elaborate, please? What is a 4-form? – Michael Angelo Jan 23, 2017 at 15:40

Add a comment

We will here give our interpretation of OP's question (v4).

2 1. We assume that OP's definition of Lorentz covariance is that the equations of motion (eom)
of the theory is Lorentz covariant.

2. We will assume that the theory has an action principle, and that the eoms are the Euler-
Lagrange (EL) equations.

3. One may prove that Lorentz invariance of the action implies Lorentz covariance of the EL
eqs., cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.

4. The implication (3) does in principle not hold in the other direction, but in practice Lorentz
covariant EL eqs. arise from a Lorentz invariant action principle.
Putting these facts together show that it is natural to expect that the action to be Lorentz
invariant for a Lorentz covariant theory, cf. definition (1).

5. Next, we will assume that the Legendre transformation is well-defined.

6. Also we will assume that the Legendre transformation is an involution, i.e. performing the
Legendre transformation twice gets us back to the starting point.

In particular, if OP starts from a Lorentz covariant (but not necessarily manifestly Lorentz
covariant) Hamiltonian formulation, this means that the Hamiltonian eoms are Lorentz
covariant cf definition (1) The Hamiltonian itself is of course not Lorentz invariant but the
Convert web pages and HTML files to PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API Printed with Pdfcrowd.com
 covariant, cf. definition (1). The Hamiltonian itself is of course not Lorentz invariant, but the
temporal component of a four-vector, as OP correctly writes. Points 2-4 now motivate that the
Hamiltonian action is Lorentz invariant. It follows that the Lagrangian action is also Lorentz
invariant.

--

For manifestly Lorentz covariant Hamiltonian formulations, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here.

The following argument can be extended to field theory.

Share Cite Improve this answer Follow edited Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 answered Jan 15, 2015 at 13:28
Community Bot Qmechanic ♦
1 174k 34 440 1999

Example: Scalar field theory. Lagrangian density with Minkowski sign convention . Let . EL eqs. . The
field is the conjugate/canonical momentum field. It is the temporal component of a 4-vector. Non-zero
Poisson brackets . – Qmechanic ♦ Jan 26, 2015 at 14:49

Hamilton's eom. and . Canonical stress-energy-momentum tensor . Noether's theorem from translation
symmetry . 4-momentum density . The Hamiltonian density is the -component of a symmetric tensor. .
4-momentum . – Qmechanic ♦ Jan 26, 2015 at 15:46

Example: Free point particle. Lagrangian with Minkowski sign convention . Here , where -momentum .
Hamiltonian is the -component of a -vector. – Qmechanic ♦ Jan 26, 2015 at 23:56

Add a comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged special-relativity lagrangian-formalism

symmetry hamiltonian-formalism or ask your own question.

Convert web pages and HTML files to PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API Printed with Pdfcrowd.com