I was playing around with a Hamiltonian model for the propagation of photons:

$$ H = c \sqrt{p \cdot p} + V(q) \tag{1}$$

which gives a meaningful set of equations of motion,

$$ \dot{q}_i = c \frac{p_i}{\sqrt{p \cdot p}} \quad \quad \dot{p}_i = - \frac{\partial V(q)}{\partial q_i}. \tag{2}$$

Notice that $$\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q} = c^2\tag{3}$$ always which is why I considered this as modeling the propagation of a massless particle.

However, this Hamiltonian has the following strange feature. If we perform a Legendre transformation to find an associated Lagrangian, $$ \mathcal{L} = p \cdot \dot{q} - H = c \frac{p \cdot p}{\sqrt{p \cdot p}} - \left( c \sqrt{p \cdot p} + V(q) \right) = - V(q) \tag{4}$$ which is not dynamical since $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}} = 0$.

A similar problem arises if I consider a dual Lagrangian system in $q, \dot{q}$ variables and attempt to find a Hamiltonian by Legendre transformation: $$ \mathcal{L} = c \sqrt{\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}} - V(q) \tag{5}$$ then we get well-defined Euler-Lagrange equations: $$ \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \left( c \frac{\dot{q}_i}{\sqrt{\dot{q}_i \cdot \dot{q}_i}} \right) = - \frac{\partial V(q)}{\partial q_i}\tag{6} $$ which becomes: $$ (\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}) \ddot{q}_i - (\dot{q} \cdot \ddot{q}) \dot{q}_i + (\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q})^{3/2} \frac{\partial V(q)}{\partial q_i} = 0.\tag{7} $$ However, if we try to find an associated Hamiltonian, $$ H = p \cdot \dot{q} - \mathcal{L} = c \frac{\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}}{\sqrt{\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}}} - \left( c \sqrt{\dot{q} \cdot \dot{q}} - V(q) \right) = V(q) \tag{8}$$ which is again non-dynamical.

What is going on here? Is there an interesting reason that these systems should not admit Lagrangian/Hamiltonian descriptions? In general, when should I expect the Legendre transformation to give me a well-behaved system that reproduces the physics I started with?


1 Answer 1

  1. The Lagrangian can be constructed directly by performing a Dirac-Bergmann constraint analysis of OP's Hamiltonian (1). In eq. (3) OP has already correctly identified the primary constraint$^1$ $$\dot{x}^2~:=~g_{\mu\nu}(x)~ \dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^{\nu}~\approx ~0, \qquad \dot{x}^{\mu}~:=~\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau}, \tag{A}$$ where $\tau$ is the world-line (WL) parameter (which does not have to be the proper time).

  2. The Lagrangian becomes the massless limit of$^2$ $$ L~=~\lambda \dot{x}^2-\frac{m^2}{4\lambda} - V,\tag{B} $$ where $\lambda(\tau)$ is a Lagrange multiplier, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.

  3. The momentum for the Lagrangian is $$ p_{\mu}~:=~\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}^{\mu}}~=~2\lambda g_{\mu\nu}(x)~\dot{x}^{\nu}, \tag{C}$$ so that the corresponding Hamiltonian is $$ H~=~\frac{p^2+m^2}{4\lambda} + V. \tag{D}$$

  4. Therefore the Hamiltonian Lagrangian becomes $$ L_H~:=~ p_{\mu} \dot{x}^{\mu} - H. \tag{E} $$

  5. Let us now go to the static gauge $x^0=\tau$. If we integrate out $p^0$ and $\lambda$, we get$^3$ $$\begin{align} \left. L_H\right|_{x^0=\tau} \quad\stackrel{p^0}{\longrightarrow}&\quad {\bf p}\cdot \dot{\bf x}- \underbrace{\left(\lambda + \frac{{\bf p}^2+m^2}{4\lambda} + V\right)}_{\text{Hamiltonian}}\cr\cr \quad\stackrel{\lambda}{\longrightarrow}&\quad {\bf p}\cdot \dot{\bf x} - \underbrace{\left(\sqrt{{\bf p}^2+m^2}+V\right)}_{\text{Hamiltonian}} .\end{align}\tag{F} $$

  6. If we put the mass $m\to 0$ then the square-root Hamiltonian (F) becomes precisely OP's Hamiltonian (1). This confirms our claim that the massless limit of eq. (B) is OP's sought-for Lagrangian.


$^1$ Let us work in units where the speed of light $c=1$ and with Minkowski sign convention $(-,+,+,+)$.

$^2$ The massterm in eq. (B) is included for generality and is not essential. The only slightly strange thing is that we restrict the $\lambda$ target-space from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}_+$. This latter point is also discussed in my Phys.SE answer here.

$^3$ A similar argument was given in eq. (3) of my Phys.SE answer here, where the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda=\frac{1}{2e}$ is replaced by an einbein field $e$.


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.