Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a physical example of a field that would have the following Lagrangian density $$ L= \sqrt{1+\phi_x^2 +\phi_y^2+\phi_z^2} $$ where the subscripts denote partial derivatives and $\phi$ is a scalar field?

share|cite|improve this question
Can I ask where you found this Lagrangian? It looks interesting. – Kasper Meerts Jun 27 '11 at 17:59
By the way, in physics nomenclature these types of Lagrangian densities are often called (static) non-linear sigma models. Some people would also refer to the particular form that you wrote down as one that is of "Born-Infeld type". – Willie Wong Jun 28 '11 at 1:58

This looks a lot like soap film statics, but with an extra dimension. Consider a soap film glued to a ring. The film is described by a function $z = \phi(x,y)$, with $z$ the height of the film above the xy-plane. We want to minimise the potential energy of the film, which means to a good approximation minimising the surface area. The total area of the film is given by

$ A = \int \sqrt{1 + \phi_x^2 + \phi_y^2}$

where the integration is over the entire xy-plane. This functional looks very similar to your Lagrangian density. The solution can be derived by applying the Euler-Lagrange equations and the solution is confusingly also called Lagrange's equation

$ (1 + \phi_y)^2 \phi_{xx} + 2 \phi_x \phi_y \phi_{xy} + (1 + \phi_x)^2 \phi_{yy} = 0 $

To give you an idea of what the solutions look like, if the field doesn't change too rapidly we can make some approximations ($\phi_x \approx \phi_y \approx \phi_{xy} \approx 0$) and get Laplace's equation

$ \phi_{xx} + \phi_{yy} = \Delta \phi = 0$

This also provides an interesting interpretation for solutions to the Laplace equation, as they are approximate minimal-area surfaces.

Most of this carries over three dimensions but the minimal-surface interpretation isn't so clear anymore.

share|cite|improve this answer
The Euler Lagrange equation for what you wrote down as the action is not $\triangle \phi = 0$. It should be instead Lagrange's equation. The higher dimensional generalisation does not have the solution as a harmonic field either. – Willie Wong Jun 27 '11 at 16:51
Also, the Lorentzian version of the equation (with density $\sqrt{1 - (\partial_t\phi)^2 + (\partial_x\phi)^2 + (\partial_y\phi)^2}$ ) is sometimes called the "relativistic membrane equation"; you can see this article of Hoppe for a discussion and further info. – Willie Wong Jun 27 '11 at 17:02
@Willie Wong: Rats, I forgot to take the derivative of the numerator. I'll edit my answer. – Kasper Meerts Jun 27 '11 at 17:50
@Kasper I encountered this Lagrangian in the book "Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem" by Neuenschwander. – Noah Jun 27 '11 at 21:39
Okay, +1 now that you fixed the error. :-) Note that the minimal surface interpretation is still valid: it is just not a surface any more, but a hypersurface in $\mathbb{R}^4$ (so you extremize 3-dimensional volume). – Willie Wong Jun 28 '11 at 1:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.