Euler-Lagrange Equation of $$ds^2=-f(x)dt^2+g(x)dx^2+2l(x)dxdt$$

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PhyAmateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Euler Lagrange
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Euler-Lagrange equation derived from the metric $$ds^2 = -f(x)dt^2 + g(x)dx^2 + 2l(x)dxdt$$. The Lagrangian is established as $$L= \frac{1}{2}(-f(x)\dot{t}^2 + g(x)\dot{x}^2 + 2l(x)\dot{x}\dot{t})$$. It is concluded that the term $$\frac{\partial L }{\partial \dot{t}}$$ represents a conserved quantity, identified as energy, which is expressed as $$-f\dot{t} + l\dot{x}$$. This indicates a discrepancy with the professor's assertion that energy is solely $$E= -f\dot{t}$$, highlighting the importance of the second factor in the conservation equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential geometry and metrics
  • Familiarity with Lagrangian mechanics
  • Knowledge of conserved quantities in physics
  • Basic grasp of Killing fields and their significance in general relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation in Lagrangian mechanics
  • Explore the concept of Killing vectors and their applications in general relativity
  • Investigate the implications of conserved quantities in physical systems
  • Learn about the role of metrics in differential geometry
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mathematicians, and students studying theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on Lagrangian mechanics and general relativity.

PhyAmateur
Messages
103
Reaction score
2
If metric is $$ds^2 = -f(x)dt^2 + g(x)dx^2 + 2l(x)dxdt $$
Then we have this Lagrangian:

$$L= \frac{1}{2}(-f(x)\dot{t}^2 + g(x)\dot{x}^2 + 2l(x)\dot{x}\dot{t}).$$

The Euler-Lagrange equation for $$t$$ is:

since $$t$$ is not there in the Lagrangian then $$\partial L/ \partial t=0$$
This implies that $$\frac{d}{d\tau}\frac{\partial L }{\partial \dot{t}}= 0$$

so $$\frac{\partial L }{\partial \dot{t}}$$ is a conserved quantity we call energy and I got it equal to $$-f\dot{t} + l\dot{x}$$ where my professor only got it $$ E= -f\dot{t}$$

Am I mistaken somewhere?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looking at this another way, we know that since the metric does not depend on ##t## that ##\partial_t## is a Killing field, meaning ##E=g_{ab}u^a(\partial_t)^a=-fu^t+lu^x=-f\dot{t}+l\dot{x}## so it looks like you are correct and your professor is missing the second factor...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhyAmateur
Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
964
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
684
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K