Boundary conditions in ##\delta I=0## to derive Einstein's equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the boundary conditions necessary for deriving Einstein's field equations from the action principle ##\delta I=0##, particularly in the context of varying the action in four dimensions compared to classical one-dimensional cases. Participants explore the implications of assuming constancy of the metric tensor ##g_{\mu\nu}## and its derivatives at the boundaries of the integration volume.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the requirement for ##g_{\mu\nu}## and its first derivatives to be constant on the boundary is essential for the action principle to work in four dimensions.
  • Others argue that the Euler-Lagrange equations need to be satisfied locally and that boundary conditions are not necessary for the derivation of these equations.
  • A participant emphasizes that the endpoints of all paths must remain fixed in the variation of the action, highlighting a difference between the 4D and 1D cases regarding the treatment of derivatives of dynamical variables.
  • Another participant suggests that many texts require boundary conditions, but this does not affect the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations, as variations must vanish for all cases, including those where boundary terms do not vanish.
  • There is a suggestion that the discussion may involve misunderstandings regarding the requirements for boundary conditions in the context of integration by parts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of boundary conditions in the derivation process, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that while boundary terms may not impact the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations, the treatment of these terms and the assumptions made about boundary conditions can vary significantly between different dimensional contexts.

Kostik
Messages
274
Reaction score
32
TL;DR
In making the variation ##\delta I=0##, where the ##g_{\mu\nu}## are considered the 'coordinates' of the Lagrangian, Dirac assumes the ##g_{\mu\nu}## and their first derivatives are constant on the boundary. How does this correspond to the usual action principle method?
Dirac derives Einstein's field equations from the action principle ##\delta I=0## where $$I=\int R\sqrt{-g} \, d^4x$$ (##R## is the Ricci scalar). Using partial integration, he shows that $$I=\int L\sqrt{-g} \, d^4x$$ where ##L## involves only ##g_{\mu\nu}## and its first derivatives, unlike ##R##. Clearly ##L\sqrt{-g}## is both the action density in four dimensions as well as the Lagrangian density in three dimensions, since $$I=\int L\sqrt{-g} \, d^4x = \int dt \int L\sqrt{-g} \, d^3x.$$ Dirac considers the ##g_{\mu\nu}## to be the 'coordinates', and their time derivatives ##g_{\mu\nu,0}## the 'velocities', so by the action principle he determines the actual 'path' ##g_{\mu\nu}## which turns out to be Einstein's field equations (in the same way that the Euler-Lagrange equations determine the equation of motion).

When performing the variation ##\delta g_{\mu\nu}## he assumes ##g_{\mu\nu}## is constant on the boundary of the four-dimensional volume ##D## in the action integral
$$I=\int_D R\sqrt{-g}d^4x.$$ This parallels the classical variation method where ##I=\int_{t_0}^{t_1} L ( q^i, {\dot{q}}^i ) \, dt##, and one assumes ##q^i(t_0)=q^i(t_1)## for all paths, i.e., all paths are constant at the endpoints (the 'boundary').

However, Dirac also assumes that we keep "the ##g_{\mu\nu}## and their first derivatives constant on the boundary." This is essential in two separate places where the divergence theorem is used, because there are Christoffel symbol terms that contain derivatives of ##g_{\mu\nu}##.

How does one explain the need to assume that both ##g_{\mu\nu}## and their first derivatives are constant on the boundary (other than the fact that it's required for the action principle method to work)? Transitioning from the usual 'principle of stationary action' in 1D to the same principle in 4D, is it clear how the spatial derivatives of the 'coordinates' ##g_{\mu\nu}## come into play?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You do not need that requirement. The Euler-Lagrange equations need to be locally satisfied regardless of boundary conditions.
 
The boundary condition requirement is used in varying the action. I’m not concerned with the E-L equations per se, which are local. I am asking about the boundary conditions in the 4D case versus the classical 1D case.
 
Kostik said:
The boundary condition requirement is used in varying the action. I’m not concerned with the E-L equations per se, which are local. I am asking about the boundary conditions in the 4D case versus the classical 1D case.
They are no more required in the 4D case than they are in the 1D case.
 
You are misunderstanding my statement. In varying the action, the endpoints of all paths remain fixed. That is the boundary condition I am referring to. Notice how the 4D is different than the 1D case - the derivates of the dynamical variables are also fixed.
 
Kostik said:
In varying the action, the endpoints of all paths remain fixed.
No, they are not in general. There is no need to do this. Not in one dimension and not in four dimensions.
 
They remain fixed so that the boundary term disappears in the integration by parts. I think we are speaking about different things. Perhaps another reader can shed some light here.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
Kostik said:
They remain fixed so that the boundary term disappears in the integration by parts. I think we are speaking about different things. Perhaps another reader can shed some light here.
No, this is a misunderstanding of the actual requirements necessary.
 
To put that into context:

Many texts will require some boundary conditions to be satisfied but this does not impact the actual derivation of the EL equations. Yes, you end up with some boundary terms that are not zero for particular variations, but you need the variation of the action to be zero for all variations. Including those for which the boundary terms vanish.

The only reason not to include the boundary terms from the beginning is that you can just hand wave those terms away. In fact, if you do not impose boundary conditions, the boundary terms of the variations vanishing will provide you with boundary conditions in order for the variation to vanish.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
785
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
926
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
575
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K