Deriving the Nambu-Goto Equation of Motion

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the Nambu-Goto equation of motion from the associated action, specifically focusing on the equation presented in the context of string theory. Participants are examining the mathematical formulation and the underlying principles of the variational approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to derive the equation of motion using the variational principle and are discussing the role of functional derivatives versus normal derivatives. Questions are raised regarding the algebraic and conceptual aspects of the derivation, particularly the use of delta notation and the implications of the variational principle.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on specific steps in the derivation process. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of functional derivatives, but there is no explicit consensus on the best approach to take or the resolution of the issues raised.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted uncertainty regarding the notation used in the derivation and whether the variational principle is the most appropriate method for this problem. Participants are also considering the implications of different mathematical approaches on the outcome of the derivation.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdf

In these notes, I am trying to derive the equation of motion (1.21) corresponding to the Nambu-Goto action:

[itex]\partial_\alpha ( \sqrt{ - \text{det} \gamma} \gamma^{\alpha \beta} \partial_\beta X^\mu ) =0[/itex]

I have found and proved all the stuff he says we need in order to do it in the above paragraph but just cannot get it to work out.

Thanks to anybody who can help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure if you're having an algebraic issue or a conceptual issue. (1.21) follows from the formula in the text above via the chain rule. The equation of motion is

[tex]0=\partial_\epsilon \left( \frac{\delta\sqrt{-\gamma}}{\delta(\partial_\epsilon X^\mu)} \right) = \partial_\epsilon \left( \frac{\delta\sqrt{-\gamma}}{\delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta} } \frac{\delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}}{\delta(\partial_\epsilon X^\mu)} \right) .[/tex]

(1.21) follows from putting everything together.
 
fzero said:
I'm not sure if you're having an algebraic issue or a conceptual issue. (1.21) follows from the formula in the text above via the chain rule. The equation of motion is

[tex]0=\partial_\epsilon \left( \frac{\delta\sqrt{-\gamma}}{\delta(\partial_\epsilon X^\mu)} \right) = \partial_\epsilon \left( \frac{\delta\sqrt{-\gamma}}{\delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta} } \frac{\delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}}{\delta(\partial_\epsilon X^\mu)} \right) .[/tex]

(1.21) follows from putting everything together.

Algebraic. Can you explain this in more detail please. Why are there deltas involved?

Thanks.
 
The equation of motion is obtained by using the variational principle

[tex] 0=\partial_\epsilon \left( \frac{\delta S}{\delta(\partial_\epsilon X^\mu)} \right) - \frac{\delta S}{\delta( X^\mu)}.[/tex]

The 2nd term vanishes, while the equation I wrote in post 2 follows from the first term.
 
fzero said:
The equation of motion is obtained by using the variational principle

[tex] 0=\partial_\epsilon \left( \frac{\delta S}{\delta(\partial_\epsilon X^\mu)} \right) - \frac{\delta S}{\delta( X^\mu)}.[/tex]

The 2nd term vanishes, while the equation I wrote in post 2 follows from the first term.

Ok. But the answer doesn't ahve any deltas in it so why are we using the variational EL equations? Why not use

[itex]\partial_\mu \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial ( \partial_\mu X^\nu )} \right) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial X^\nu}[/itex]
 
Using [tex]\delta[/tex] here is partially a matter of notation and partially an attempt to distinguish that the functional derivative is not mathematically the same as a normal derivative. I don't believe that this issue would prevent you from obtaining the result, so you might want to explain in more detail where you got stuck in your derivation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
95
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K