4
$\begingroup$

The background:

If we have a spacetime path $x^\mu(t)$ parameterized by arbitrary parameter $t$, the proper time along the path between $t_1$ and $t_2$ is $$ \int_{t_1}^{t_2} (g_{\mu \nu} \dot x^\mu \dot x^\nu)^{1/2}dt. $$ This action has a reparameterization symmetry. If we take the Lagrangian to be $$L = (g_{\mu \nu} \dot x^\mu \dot x^\nu)^{1/2}$$ then the Euler Lagrange equation ends up being (after multiplying by the inverse metric) $$ \ddot x^\mu = - \Gamma^\mu_{\; \beta \gamma} \dot x^\beta \dot x^\gamma + \dot x^\mu \frac{d}{dt} \ln(L). $$ If we use an affine parameter $t$ such that $L$ is constant along the path, then this is just the regular geodesic equation.

We can see that the reparameterization (gauge) symmetry is a huge pain. For example, it seems to render the Hamiltonian to be $0$.

\begin{align*} H &= \Big( \frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot x^\mu} \Big)\dot x^\mu - L \\ &= 2\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{\mu \nu} \dot x^\nu}{(g_{\alpha \beta} \dot x^\alpha \dot x^\beta )^{1/2}} \dot x^\mu - (g_{\mu \nu} \dot x^\mu \dot x^\nu)^{1/2} \\ & = 0. \end{align*} This seems to be related to the reparameterization symmetry because $H$ should generate time translations. However, if time evolution is not deterministic, then there's nothing for $H$ to reasonably be.

We would therefore like to find a less "pathological" Lagrangian and Hamiltonian with the same equations of motion, but in an automatically affinely parameterized form. The answer is to take $$ L = \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} \dot x^\mu \dot x^\nu \implies H = \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu \nu} p_{\mu} p_{\nu}. $$ Note that $L_{\rm new} = \tfrac{1}{2}L_{\rm old}^2$. The Euler Lagrange equations are indeed the affinely parameterized geodesic equations. The same goes for Hamilton's equations $$ \dot x^\mu = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_{\mu}} , \hspace{1 cm} \dot p_{\mu} = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial x^{\mu}} \implies \ddot x^\mu = - \Gamma^\mu_{\; \beta \gamma} \dot x^\beta \dot x^\gamma. $$

The question:

It seems like a complete coincidence that squaring the Lagrangian gives us sort of "gauge fixed" version of our original Lagrangian. Is there a principled, philosophical approach we can take to move from $L_{\rm old}$ to $L_{\rm new}$, rather than just seeing that the equations of motion give us what we want? Is this a special case of a more general procedure?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Are you aware of the same difference appearing between the Nambu-Goto action and the Polyakov action? $\endgroup$ – octonion Oct 23 '19 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, which is part of the reason I am interested in the answer. However, even that procedure, as I have seen it described, is a little "ad hoc." $\endgroup$ – user1379857 Oct 23 '19 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ Well, minimizing the proper time is the same as the proper time squared. But the proper time squared action is just the ordinary Lagrangian for a free particle (the kinetic term) generalized to a curved background. You can think of this as a non-linear sigma model too, if you like $\endgroup$ – octonion Oct 23 '19 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ Well, the integral of the (proper times) squared is different from (the integral of the proper time)^2 $\endgroup$ – user1379857 Oct 23 '19 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ Yes the quantum theory built on the two is different, but the saddle point is the same $\endgroup$ – octonion Oct 23 '19 at 20:02
3
$\begingroup$
  1. Physicists conventionally normalize the square root Lagrangian a bit differently, namely as$^1$ $$L_0~:=~ -m\sqrt{-\dot{x}^2}, \qquad \dot{x}^2~:=~g_{\mu\nu}(x)~ \dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^{\nu}~<~0,\tag{1}$$ where $m>0$ is the mass. (OP assumes that $m=1$.)

  2. It is important to note that the Legendre transformation of the square root Lagrangian (1) is singular: the momentum has to satisfy the mass-shell constraint $$ p^2+m^2~\approx~0 , \qquad p^2~:=~g^{\mu\nu}(x)~ p_{\mu}p_{\nu}.\tag{2} $$ Therefore, even though OP is correct that the original Hamiltonian is zero because of worldline (WL) reparametrization invariance, the full Hamiltonian $$ H~=~ \frac{e}{2}(p^2+m^2)\tag{3} $$ becomes a Lagrange multiplier $e$ times the mass-shell constraint (2).

  3. The inverse Legendre transformation of the Hamiltonian (3) leads to the Lagrangian $$L~=~\frac{\dot{x}^2}{2e}-\frac{e m^2}{2}.\tag{4}$$ If we integrate out the $e$ field, the Lagrangian (4) becomes the square root Lagrangian (1), cf. e.g. this related Phys.SE post.

  4. The main point is now that OP's quadratic Hamiltonian and Lagrangian are the $e=1$ gauge of the Hamiltonian (3) and the Lagrangian (4), respectively, up to irrelevant constant terms. In that sense they follow systematically from the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm for constrained systems.

  5. For further details, see e.g. this related Phys.SE post.

--

$^1$ We use the sign convention $(-,+,+,+)$, and put the speed-of-light $c=1$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ But if we wish to fix the constraint $(p^2 + m^2) = 0$, wouldn't adding any function of that constraint to the Lagrangian, $ef(p^2 + m^2)$, do the trick? Why not use $(p^2 + m^2)^{1/2}$ for instance? Isn't there something special about the squared Langrangian? $\endgroup$ – user1379857 Oct 23 '19 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that the mass-shell constraint (2) is already automatically satisfied in the Lagrangian formalism that is based on the the square root Lagrangian (1). $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 23 '19 at 22:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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