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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Dirac derives Einstein's field equations using the action principle ##\delta I=0##, where the action integral is defined as $$I=\int R\sqrt{-g} \, d^4x$$. He demonstrates that the Lagrangian density ##L##, which depends on ##g_{\mu\nu}## and its first derivatives, is crucial for establishing the equations of motion. The discussion emphasizes the necessity of keeping both ##g_{\mu\nu}## and their first derivatives constant on the boundary of the four-dimensional volume during variation, which parallels classical methods in one dimension. The boundary conditions are essential for ensuring that the action remains stationary, although they do not affect the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the action principle in physics
  • Familiarity with Ricci scalar and its role in general relativity
  • Knowledge of Lagrangian mechanics and Euler-Lagrange equations
  • Concept of boundary conditions in variational calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Einstein's field equations from the action principle
  • Explore the implications of boundary conditions in variational calculus
  • Learn about the divergence theorem and its applications in general relativity
  • Investigate the differences between classical mechanics and field theory in terms of boundary conditions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students of theoretical physics interested in the foundations of general relativity and the application of variational principles in higher-dimensional spaces.

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
688
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
911
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
448
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
3K