User Tools

Site Tools


formalisms:lagrangian_formalism

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
formalisms:lagrangian_formalism [2020/04/02 20:35]
184.147.122.3
formalisms:lagrangian_formalism [2023/03/08 17:35] (current)
62.4.55.178
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 The basic idea of the Lagrangian formalism can be summarized by the statement: The basic idea of the Lagrangian formalism can be summarized by the statement:
 +
  
 //Nature is lazy.// //Nature is lazy.//
Line 9: Line 10:
 The laziness of nature is demonstrated nicely by how light behaves. The laziness of nature is demonstrated nicely by how light behaves.
  
-**The Principle of Least Time +**The Principle of Least Time**
-**+
  
 Long before Joseph Lagrange invented the formalism now named after him, it was well known that light always takes the path between two points that requires the least travel time. This is known as **Fermat'​s Principle**. Long before Joseph Lagrange invented the formalism now named after him, it was well known that light always takes the path between two points that requires the least travel time. This is known as **Fermat'​s Principle**.
Line 43: Line 43:
 **Reading Recommendations** **Reading Recommendations**
  
-  * [[http://​nautil.us/blog/​to-save-drowning-people-ask-yourself-what-would-light-do|To Save Drowning People, Ask Yourself “What Would Light Do?”]] by Aatish Bhatia+  * [[https://​nautil.us/​to-save-drowning-people-ask-yourself-what-would-light-do-234852/|To Save Drowning People, Ask Yourself “What Would Light Do?”]] by Aatish Bhatia
  
  
Line 81: Line 81:
 The travel time for a path $q(t)$ between two fixed points $A$ and $B$ is given by The travel time for a path $q(t)$ between two fixed points $A$ and $B$ is given by
  
-\[S_{\text{light}}[\mathbf{q}(t)]=\int_A^B dt\]+\[S_{\text{light}}[q(t)]=\int_A^B dt\]
  
 The path $q_m(t)$ that light actually takes is the path that minimizes this quantity. For light this quantity is simply the travel time.  The path $q_m(t)$ that light actually takes is the path that minimizes this quantity. For light this quantity is simply the travel time. 
Line 89: Line 89:
 Now, Joseph Lagrange was fascinated by this principle and tried to find something similar for other objects, not just light. Unfortunately,​ simply assuming that the correct path for general objects is the path with minimal travel time does not yield correct results. Now, Joseph Lagrange was fascinated by this principle and tried to find something similar for other objects, not just light. Unfortunately,​ simply assuming that the correct path for general objects is the path with minimal travel time does not yield correct results.
  
-However, Lagrange instead proposed a more general ​Ansatz+However, Lagrange instead proposed a more general ​ansatz
  
 \[S[q(t)]=\int L \,dt, \] \[S[q(t)]=\int L \,dt, \]
Line 97: Line 97:
 Nevertheless,​ the exact same principle is so powerful that it is used in almost all modern theories. ​ Nevertheless,​ the exact same principle is so powerful that it is used in almost all modern theories. ​
  
-For example, quantum field theory, we also "​guess"​ the correct function $L$ and find the correct equations of motion by minimizing the action $S$. The most powerful tool that we have in finding the correct quantity $L$ is symmetries. Experimental restrictions,​ such as the observation that the speed of light is constant in inertial frames of reference, are so powerful that they are almost enough to determine the correct function $L$. +For example, ​in [[theories:​quantum_field_theory|quantum field theory]], we also "​guess"​ the correct function $L$ and find the correct equations of motion by minimizing the action $S$. The most powerful tool that we have in finding the correct quantity $L$ is symmetries. Experimental restrictions,​ such as the observation that the speed of light is constant in inertial frames of reference, are so powerful that they are almost enough to determine the correct function $L$. 
  
 <​blockquote>"​First,​ note that total energy is conserved, so energy can slosh back and forth between kinetic and potential forms. The Lagrangian L = K − V is big when most of the energy is in kinetic form, and small when most of the energy is in potential form. Kinetic energy measures how much is ‘happening’ — how much our system is moving around. Potential energy measures how much could happen, but isn’t yet — that’s what the word ‘potential’ means. (Imagine a big rock sitting on top of a cliff, with the potential to fall down.) So, the Lagrangian measures something we could vaguely refer to as the ‘activity’ or ‘liveliness’ of a system: the higher the kinetic energy the more lively the system, the higher the potential energy the less lively. So, we’re being told that nature likes to minimize the total of ‘liveliness’ over time: that is, the total action. In other words, nature is as lazy as possible!"<​cite>​http://​math.ucr.edu/​home/​baez/​classical/​texfiles/​2005/​book/​classical.pdf</​cite></​blockquote>​ <​blockquote>"​First,​ note that total energy is conserved, so energy can slosh back and forth between kinetic and potential forms. The Lagrangian L = K − V is big when most of the energy is in kinetic form, and small when most of the energy is in potential form. Kinetic energy measures how much is ‘happening’ — how much our system is moving around. Potential energy measures how much could happen, but isn’t yet — that’s what the word ‘potential’ means. (Imagine a big rock sitting on top of a cliff, with the potential to fall down.) So, the Lagrangian measures something we could vaguely refer to as the ‘activity’ or ‘liveliness’ of a system: the higher the kinetic energy the more lively the system, the higher the potential energy the less lively. So, we’re being told that nature likes to minimize the total of ‘liveliness’ over time: that is, the total action. In other words, nature is as lazy as possible!"<​cite>​http://​math.ucr.edu/​home/​baez/​classical/​texfiles/​2005/​book/​classical.pdf</​cite></​blockquote>​
Line 304: Line 304:
 --> Why is the correct path given by the path with minimal action?# --> Why is the correct path given by the path with minimal action?#
  
-The answer can be found through the [[theories:​quantum_mechanics:​path_integral|path integral formulation]] of [[theories:​quantum_mechanics:​canonical|quantum mechanics]]. The thing is that a particle really has some probability to go all possible ways. However, the classical path is the most probable path, because paths close this this path infer constructively and hence yield a big probability. In contrast, for other paths far aways from the classical path the interference is destructive and hence the probability is tiny. The path with minimal action gives the biggest contribution to the path integral in the classical limit $\hbar \to 0$.+The answer can be found through the [[theories:​quantum_mechanics:​path_integral|path integral formulation]] of [[theories:​quantum_mechanics:​canonical|quantum mechanics]]. The thing is that a particle really has some probability to go all possible ways. However, the classical path is the most probable path, because paths close this this path interfere ​constructively and hence yield a big probability. In contrast, for other paths far aways from the classical path the interference is destructive and hence the probability is tiny. The path with minimal action gives the biggest contribution to the path integral in the classical limit $\hbar \to 0$.
  
 This is explained nicely in Section 3 [[https://​arxiv.org/​pdf/​quant-ph/​0004090.pdf|here]]. ​ This is explained nicely in Section 3 [[https://​arxiv.org/​pdf/​quant-ph/​0004090.pdf|here]]. ​
formalisms/lagrangian_formalism.1585852501.txt.gz · Last modified: 2020/04/02 18:35 (external edit)