Deriving Equations of Motion in GR

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the equations of motion from the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff line element in General Relativity (GR). Participants are exploring the application of the least action principle and the Euler-Lagrange equations to obtain these equations of motion, while addressing the implications of affine parametrization of geodesics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff line element and expresses difficulty in deriving the equations of motion using the Euler-Lagrange equations.
  • Another participant notes that the equations of motion should be equivalent for two forms of the Lagrangian, but emphasizes that this equivalence holds only if the geodesic is parametrized by an affine parameter.
  • A later reply acknowledges the potential issue of non-affine parametrization and expresses a mix of relief and frustration at the realization.
  • Further discussion raises confusion about the conditions under which the Lagrangian can be set to a constant value, questioning if this is also dependent on affine parametrization.
  • Another participant clarifies that the requirement for an affine parametrization relates to maintaining a constant length tangent vector, but does not guarantee that a geodesic has been found.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of affine parametrization in the context of deriving equations of motion, but there is uncertainty regarding the implications of this requirement and its relationship to the Lagrangian forms used in GR. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion regarding the conditions for using different forms of the Lagrangian and the implications of affine versus non-affine parametrization, indicating a need for clarity on these concepts.

Matter_Matters
Messages
35
Reaction score
2
Question Background:
I'm considering the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff line element which is given by
(ds)^2 = \left( 1 - 2 \left(\frac{\mu}{r}\right) + 2 \left(\frac{\mu^2}{r^2}\right) \right) dt^2 - \left( 1 + 2 \left( \frac{\mu}{r} \right) \right) (dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2{\theta} \;d\phi^2 ),
where \mu = GM = \text{const.} and r=|\mathbf{r}|.
I'm interested in determining the equations of motion for such a line element which can be obtained from the least action principle. The classical action S is the integral along the particle trajectory
S = \int ds,
which can be equivalently expressed as
S = \int \left( \frac{ds}{dt} \right) dt \equiv \int L \; dt.
We can see from the above that
L = \left[ \left( 1 - 2 \left(\frac{\mu}{r}\right) + 2 \left(\frac{\mu^2}{r^2}\right) \right) - \left( 1 + 2 \left( \frac{\mu}{r} \right) \right) (\mathbf{\dot{r}} \cdot \mathbf{\dot{r}}) \right]^{1/2},
where L is the associated Lagrangian over time.
Problem and question
The associated equations of motion are given by (Eq. 20)
\frac{d^2\mathbf{r}}{dt^2} = \frac{\mu}{r^3} \left[ \left(4 \frac{\mu}{r} - v^2 \right) \mathbf{r} + 4 (\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{r}} ) \mathbf{\dot{r}}\right].
I cannot for the life of me obtain this using the Euler-Lagrange equations.
Attempt at a solution:
The Euler-Lagrange equations are given by
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{\dot{r}}} \right) - \frac{\partial L}{ \partial \mathbf{r}} =0.
I note that the equations of motion should be equivalent for either
L = \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu} \dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^\mu},
or
L = g_{\mu\nu} \dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^\mu.
Bearing this in mind and working through the process using
L = \left[ \left( 1 - 2 \left(\frac{\mu}{r}\right) + 2 \left(\frac{\mu^2}{r^2}\right) \right) - \left( 1 + 2 \left( \frac{\mu}{r} \right) \right) (\mathbf{\dot{r}} \cdot \mathbf{\dot{r}}) \right],
I find
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{ \partial \mathbf{\dot{r}}} \right) = -2 \left[ \left( 1 + 2 \frac{\mu}{r} \mathbf{\ddot{r}} \right) - 2 \frac{\mu}{r^3} (\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{r}}) \mathbf{\dot{r}} \right],
and
\left( \frac{\partial L }{\partial \mathbf{r}} \right) = 2\frac{\mu}{r^3} \mathbf{r} - 4 \frac{\mu^2}{r^4} \mathbf{r} + 2 \frac{\mu}{r^3} \mathbf{r} (\mathbf{\dot{r}} \cdot \mathbf{\dot{r}} ).
Clearly, adding these together does not give the desired result. Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Matter_Matters said:
I note that the equations of motion should be equivalent for either
L=√gμν˙xμ˙xμ,L=gμνx˙μx˙μ,​
L = \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu} \dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^\mu},
or
L=gμν˙xμ˙xμ.L=gμνx˙μx˙μ.​
L = g_{\mu\nu} \dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^\mu.
This is only true if the geodesic is parametrised by an affine parameter. The coordinate ##t## is in general not affine.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Matter_Matters
Orodruin said:
This is only true if the geodesic is parametrised by an affine parameter. The coordinate ##t## is in general not affine.
O wow! If this was the issue the whole time I will be very pleased but also annoyed at my ignorance!
 
Orodruin said:
This is only true if the geodesic is parametrised by an affine parameter. The coordinate ##t## is in general not affine.
Hmmm I am confused now! So, normally in GR we can set the Lagrangian = ##\pm c## depending on the signature of the line element. Is this only true when the geodesic is parametrised by an affine parameter also? Even using the ## L = \sqrt{ }##, I can't seem to manage to get the correct expression!
 
Matter_Matters said:
So, normally in GR we can set the Lagrangian = ±c depending on the signature of the line element. Is this only true when the geodesic is parametrised by an affine parameter also?
In general, it will just give you a requirement that gives an affine parametrisation (constant length tangent vector). It tells you nothing about whether or not you found a geodesic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
865
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
708