3

In the Lagrangian picture of special relativity we usually define the action $$S = -mc^2 \int d\tau.$$ This is clearly 0 for massless particles, so it says absolutely nothing about their motion. Despite that, from this Lagrangian we obtain momentum and energy (after passing to the Hamiltonian) and eventually conclude $$E^2 = m^2c^4 + {\bf p}^2c^2$$ and then use this identity even for massless particles. Why is this fair?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Pedro
  • 572

1 Answers1

3
  1. It seems overkill to use the Lagrangian formalism to prove the relativistic dispersion relation. It follows just from

  2. Nevertheless, if OP is not satisfied by a continuity argument $m\to 0$, and if OP wants to pursuit the Lagrangian formalism, then one should use a manifestly Lorentz-covariant Lagrangian $$L~=~-\frac{\dot{x}^2}{2e}-\frac{e (mc)^2}{2} \tag{L}$$ that works for both massless & massive point particles, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. One may show that the corresponding Hamiltonian Lagrangian is $$L_H~=~p_{\mu}\dot{x}^{\mu}-\underbrace{\frac{e}{2}((mc)^2-p^2)}_{\text{Hamiltonian}}, \tag{H}$$ cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. The EL equation for the auxiliary field $e$ yields precisely the sought-for mass-shell condition $$p^2~=~(mc)^2,\tag{M}$$ even in the massless case.

--

$^1$ In this answer the Minkowski signature is assumed to be $(+,-,-,-)$.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • Regarding your first point, I'm not sure how we can really get away from looking at the Lagrangian. I suppose we may simply define the momentum vector in terms of the velocity vector $P = mU$, though without knowing that this actually comes from the Lagrangian we have no a priori reason to expect it to be conserved. I believe introductory books argue this by picturing a collision in two different reference frames, but I just find the Lagrangian approach so much clearer and more systematic. – Pedro Jul 18 '20 at 19:55
  • Even if we define $P = mU$ why do we expect $P^0$ to correspond to energy? Again this is a consequence of the Lagrangian formalism, but otherwise we would need some kind of argument, – Pedro Jul 18 '20 at 19:56
  • There's a good explanation of this Lagrangian here https://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2010/08/the-origin-of-the-einbein.html – Pedro Jul 20 '20 at 21:08