Why is symmetry so important in particle physics?
(1&#x2F;2) Hey thanks for the in depth review!<p>&gt; The next couple of examples only minimize the Lagrangian; are there any systems in this article that maximize it?<p>So it&#x27;s not really relevant whether we minimize or maximize it - AFAIK, the action principle states that any path that maximizes OR minimizes the Lagrangian would be a path that the system could take. I&#x27;m actually not sure why it so happens that there&#x27;s always a unique path in the theories that physicists use - I&#x27;m guessing that the argument could be that a Lagrangian that gives multiple paths would be unphysical? Not sure here.<p>&gt; What in this case are the objects? Just particles? Is mass in the first example (of classical motion) an object? I&#x27;m trying to figure out what kind of objects to use to build an equation, or basically, what type (in the programming sense) an object is<p>I&#x27;m using objects as a superclass&#x2F;base class (in the programming sense) of both fields and particles. In classical mechanics you have two things - particles, where particles are described by their position (along with derivatives). You also have fields (electric, magnetic) that are described by the amplitude of the field at all points in space (along with derivatives).<p>&gt; Why? Are there other theories, maybe from earlier in the development of physics, that used a different approach?<p>It&#x27;s surprising at first glance since it&#x27;s hard to imagine an intuitive reason for why every theory we&#x27;ve developed, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory - can be reformulated in a way where some function L is being minimized or maximized. I suppose there could be theories that can&#x27;t be framed in such a way, but AFAIK all theories &#x27;in use&#x27; can.<p>&gt; I assume that in this passage &quot;building blocks&quot; is equivalent to &quot;objects&quot; in the last passage? Why are fields more useful? Is there an example of what using particles as objects would look like? In particular, a field looks to me like a function; if you used particles as an object, would you represent a particle as a function using its position and velocity? Would that function have time as a parameter like fields do? Typing that out I can kind of see why you&#x27;d use fields<p>This is a really good point and something I definitely should clarify. So this jump from particles to &quot;everything is a field&quot; happens when we jump from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics (and quantum field theory). In quantum mechanics you never really know the &#x27;position&#x27; of a particle anymore, it&#x27;s not defined - a particle is represented by a probability distribution over all space, which is where its field nature comes in - you&#x27;re assigning a probability density to each point in space.<p>This is definitely something that I hand waved away for simplicity, but can definitely see how this is confusing.<p>&gt; What does the output represent? Anything in particular? If not, then it seems like you could define the field function to be anything since the output doesn&#x27;t represent anything, then when you feed the field function into the Lagrangian eventually you&#x27;d get massively different results<p>So what the output is is completely up to you, as the &#x27;author&#x27; of the theory. If the field is a complex number representing the probability density of the particle, then you&#x27;ll end up with a theory of scalar particles, such as the Higgs boson. If the field represents spinors (vector like objects that transform differently), then you get electrons. If the field spits out vectors, then you get a theory of the electromagnetic field.<p>You bring up an interesting point - we can have fields with arbitrarily exotic objects, so which ones do we use? I believe this just comes down to experiment.<p>&gt; How is the Lagrangian constructed? This &quot;simplest&quot; Lagrangian is the derivative of the field with respect to time, along with the derivative of the field&#x27;s complex conjugate with respect to time, but how&#x27;d you know to do that? What makes this the simplest possible Lagrangian? Calling this the &quot;simplest Lagrangian&quot; hints that there are other equally valid ways to create a Lagrangian; is that correct? What are the rules for that? Why would you make a more complex Lagrangian?<p>Another really good point. Schwichtenberg&#x27;s books flesh out the argument in more detail, but you&#x27;re right that there are many ways to create a Lagrangian, in principle, any theory you come up with that follows the action principle can be (by definition) expressed by a Lagrangian. L can be whatever you want.<p>Now, why this particular choice of L? One argument is - let&#x27;s assume that L can be expanded out in a series. In that series we&#x27;ll have terms with time derivatives of the field, and terms that involve just the field. This is where the &#x27;simple&#x27; part comes in - we&#x27;re chopping off all time derivatives except the first derivative, multiplied by nothing else. The only other consideration is that the term with the time derivative needs to be of even order, because otherwise you will not have a stable theory. So this leaves the &#x27;simplest&#x27; time derivative terms as (d&#x2F;dt)(phi) squared, or multiplied by the complex conjugate.<p>The key thing to note is that there aren&#x27;t really precise rules the conclusively dictate exactly what the Lagrangian must be. The Standard Model uses a set of terms, and there are some heuristic reasons for why those terms are used (Lorentz invariance being an imporant one), but at the end of the day - you can build any Lagrangian you want for your theory. The one used in this piece is just a simple Lagrangian has enough &#x27;interestingness&#x27; that it somewhat reproduces the effects of how symmetry influences the actual, full scale Standard Model Lagrangian.<p>&gt; What is V(ϕ)? My initial assumption would be velocity, but how do you take velocity of a field? Actually, I can see what they&#x27;re doing: velocity of a particle is the derivative of it&#x27;s position with respect to time, so I guess V(ϕ) aka velocity of the field is the derivative of the field with respect to time. That could&#x27;ve stood to have been spelled out<p>Apologies for the confusion here - this just represents any function that doesn&#x27;t depend on the time derivative of phi. It&#x27;s called potential energy since it depends on the value of the field, so where it &#x27;is&#x27;, not how it&#x27;s changing.