Conserved Quantity Along Affine Parameter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conserved quantities derived from the Lagrangian in Schwarzschild coordinates, specifically focusing on the interpretation and significance of the quantity ##Q##, which is expressed as the Lagrangian itself. Participants explore its relationship to the affine parameter ##\lambda## and its implications for geodesics in general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Lagrangian does not explicitly include the affine parameter ##\lambda##, leading to questions about the physical meaning of ##Q##.
  • Others propose that ##Q## represents the conservation of the squared 4-velocity, linking it to the requirement for ##\lambda## to be an affine parameter.
  • It is suggested that different values for ##Q## correspond to different scalings of the affine parameter, indicating that ##Q## may not have physical significance like the conserved quantities ##E## and ##L##.
  • One participant points out that the standard choices for ##Q## would be ##Q = -1## or ##Q = 0## for light-like geodesics, and that ##Q## is equivalent to the Lagrangian itself.
  • Another participant discusses how inserting other constants of motion into ##Q## leads to an effective equation of motion for ##r##, drawing parallels to classical Newtonian mechanics.
  • There is a mention of the potential for deriving a first-order differential equation for ##\dot r## from the effective equation of motion, contrasting it with the second-order differential equation from the original Euler equations.
  • One participant reflects on the choice of defining ##E## differently to reproduce similarities with Newtonian equations, indicating a conceptual exploration of the relationship between general relativity and classical mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of the significance of ##Q##, with some viewing it as a mere mathematical artifact while others explore its implications for the affine parameter. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the physical meaning of ##Q## compared to ##E## and ##L##.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion is contingent on the definitions and assumptions surrounding the Lagrangian and the affine parameter, with some noting the potential for confusion arising from these choices.

Messages
36,644
Reaction score
15,484
TL;DR
What is the meaning/interpretation of the conserved quantity along the affine parameter in the Schwarzschild spacetime
In the usual Schwarzschild coordinates the Lagrangian can be written: $$\mathcal{L}= \frac{\dot r^2}{1-\frac{2M}{r}} - \left( 1- \frac{2M}{r} \right) \dot t^2 + r^2 \dot \phi^2$$ where all derivatives are with respect to a (affine) parameter ##\lambda##, and where for convenience I have considered units such that ##c=G=1## and coordinates such that ##\theta = \pi/2## so everything is in the equatorial plane.

Inspecting the Lagrangian we see that ##t##, ##\phi##, and ##\lambda## do not appear. So we have three easy conserved quantities: $$ E=\left( 1-\frac{2M}{r} \right) \dot t^2$$ $$ L=r^2 \dot \phi $$ $$Q = \frac{\dot r^2}{1-\frac{2M}{r}}-\left( 1-\frac{2M}{r} \right) \dot t^2 + r^2 \dot \phi^2$$

I understand that ##E## is interpreted as a conserved energy and ##L## is interpreted as a conserved angular momentum. But what is ##Q##?

It is conserved, but it isn't apparent to me what it is. I also am not sure if it is useful. I can solve for ##\dot t## in terms of ##E## and for ##\dot \phi## in terms of ##L## and use those to simplify my geodesics. But I don't see anything similar to be done for ##Q##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Conservation of the squared 4-velocity. Essentially the affine parameter requirement.
 
Oh, so it just is the condition in these coordinates that makes ##\lambda## into an affine parameter instead of some generic parameter.

I guess then that different values for ##Q## correspond to different scalings for the affine parameter. So the value of ##Q## can be arbitrarily and freely selected and is not physically meaningful like ##E## or ##L##.
 
Dale said:
I guess then that different values for ##Q## correspond to different scalings for the affine parameter. So the value of ##Q## can be arbitrarily and freely selected and is not physically meaningful like ##E## or ##L##.
The standard choice would of course be ##Q =-1## or 0 (the latter for light-like geodesics). Note that ##Q = \mathcal L##.

Inserting the other constants of motion into ##Q## gives the typical effective equation of motion for ##r## which is very reminiscent of the classical Newtonian one (with some additions).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale and malawi_glenn
Dale said:
But what is ?
##Q## is just the Lagrangian itself. Would we ever expect the parameter ##\lambda## to appear in the Lagrangian?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale and malawi_glenn
Orodruin said:
Note that ##Q = \mathcal L##
PeterDonis said:
##Q## is just the Lagrangian itself
Embarrassingly, I didn't even notice that.

PeterDonis said:
Would we ever expect the parameter ##\lambda## to appear in the Lagrangian?
No. This is part of what confused me. I can easily think of Lagrangians without conserved energy or angular momentum, but not ##Q##. I guess it is unsurprising that I could not think of a Lagrangian without a Lagrangian. :doh:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn
Orodruin said:
Inserting the other constants of motion into ##Q## gives the typical effective equation of motion for ##r## which is very reminiscent of the classical Newtonian one (with some additions).
Interesting. So I get $$ \frac{r^3 \left(\dot r^2-E^2\right)-2 L^2 M+L^2 r}{r^2 (r-2 M)}=-1 $$ I could solve that for ##\dot r## to get a first-order differential equation that seems useful. Otherwise, even with the conserved quantities, the original Euler equations gives me a second-order differential equation for ##r##.
 
This is from my GR lecture notes:
1658328140871.png

In essence, you find the Newtonian equation of motion with time replaced by proper time and the additional term caused by ##\alpha## (your ##Q##, essentially a constant term) and the additional term caused by the cross term of the angular momentum barrier with the Newtonian potential.

Edit: Note that I also defined ##E## differently ...
1658328341267.png

This choice is obviously just to reproduce the similarity to the Newtonian equation.

Edit 2: You should find the same if you replace ##E^2 \to 2E## and solve for ##\dot r^2/2##.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Dale
Dale said:
Oh, so it just is the condition in these coordinates that makes ##\lambda## into an affine parameter instead of some generic parameter.

I guess then that different values for ##Q## correspond to different scalings for the affine parameter. So the value of ##Q## can be arbitrarily and freely selected and is not physically meaningful like ##E## or ##L##.
Yes, that's the great thing when choosing the "squared form" of the Lagrangian. Your parameter is automatically affine since ##Q=\text{const}## means that ##g_{\mu \nu} \dot{q}^{\mu} \dot{a}^{\nu}=\text{const}##. If you have massive particle, you can choose this to be ##c^2##, and your affine parameter is the proper time of the particle. You can of course also choose ##Q=0## for a massless particle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
960
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K