This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics: Relativity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Strictly speaking, the Lagrangian for a relativistic system is defined as L = T* - V, where T* is the kinetic coenergy function. The kinetic coenergy function is equal to kinetic energy for classical mechanics, but differs in relativistic systems. The article on Lagrangian mechanics does not clarify this distinction, so I believe it should be clarified here.

The new content [1] was originally in the Lagrangian mechanics article, most of which has been rewritten by me at the time of this note. Since that article became too long, I moved it here. This article was a hideous redirect to... an article in string theory. The new content is fitting for the title. Most of the examples were originally written by others for the older version of the Lagrangian article (now a disambiguation page), which were transferred by me into Lagrangian mechanics, now they are here. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this equation correct?

As far as I can tell, it doesn't equal the Lagrangian given above:

The former equation implies another factor of on the latter, right? And the factor of seems like it should be there either. There might also be a missing sign but I'm not sure what metric signature is being used as it's not stated.

I'm hesitant to edit it without finding a source but wanted to ask. Shevvvv (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your first equation is wrong, indeed ridiculous. You must have a reliable secondary source for any equation you add to the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to be rude.

My point is that the first equation is in the article in the section "Special relativistic test particle in an electromagnetic field" and seems completely wrong. I wanted to correct it but don't have a reference available for the corrected form. Shevvvv (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which goes something like this. EditingPencil (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related question: why do we have this lengthy unreferenced "derivation" at all?

The article should give the essence of relativistic lagrangian mechanics, not a textbook regurgitation. That's what references or Further Reading is for. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn't matter what type of derivation that the form of the Lagrangian naturally arises in. I edited justification to strengthen the same argument here. In hindsight, this was a hastily written question, lol. EditingPencil (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to diff of my edit. EditingPencil (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Covariant formulation section, the Lagrangian suddenly loses the square root and it goes from being indicated with the letter L to the letter Lambda. What is going on? That section does not harmonize with the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.68.168 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]