sci.physics.electromag

On Aug 7, 8:03 am, "Juan R."
wrote:
> In the current micro-thought,
>
> /
>
> I present some relativistic Lagrangians and discuss several
> limitations of the field-theoretic approach.
>
> This is motivated by the generalized belief on field theory as being
> 'fundamental' or 'complete' for modelling interactions.
>
> First, I introduce some popular choices for field relativistic
> Lagrangians.
>
> Next, I list several fundamental limitations of the field theoretic
> approach related to the relativistic equations of motion. This shows
> the field theoretic formulation is not fundamental.
>
> Those limitations are often unknown and still some authors try to get
> some kind of "unified field theory" or believe that general relativity
> (a metric formulation) is our last word about macroscopic gravity.
>
> Authors who considered the field-theoretic description to be limited
> and worked in alternatives includes celebrated Fokker, Dirac, Wheeler,
> or Feynman between others.
>
> S. Weinberg has not provided us an alternative to the field paradigm
> but at least he warns his readers in the page 1 of his textbook on
> quantum field theory (vol. 1):
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> If it turned out that some physical system could not be described
> by a quantum field theory, it would be a sensation; if it turned out
> that the system did not obey the rules of quantum mechanics and
> relativity, it would be a cataclysm.
>
> In fact, lately there has been a reaction against looking at
> quantum field theory as fundamental.
>
> }
>
> But field theory is not fundamental already at the classical level. We
> need alternatives. What one?
>
> This Micro-thought addresses next misunderstandings in
> :
>
> "Relativistic theories compatible with special relativity may use
> fields"
> --Bilge--
>
> "There is not relativistic potential energy"
> --Bilge, Karandash2, Eric, Bill--
>
> "L = T - V is not valid for relativistic systems"
> --Eric--
>
> Note for readers: due to inability of some 'experts' to learn i will
> not reply their further misunderstandings. Almost anyone here knows
> who they are.
>
> Note for readers: Because some past episodes of flamming in
> , both comments in the blog and my newsgroup e-
> mail are disabled.

Sounds to me that you just might be confusing the field Lagrangian
with the mechanical Lagrangian. By the way, if you can actually come
up with a model that can explain how things work without invoking
either fields or action-at-a-distance, you're welcome to it.