Help with the variation of the Ricci tensor to the metric

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the calculation of the variation of the Ricci scalar with respect to the metric in the context of a spatially flat Friedmann universe. Participants explore the implications of the action's definition and its convergence issues, as well as the application of the Einstein field equations (EFE) in cosmological scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to compute the variation of the Ricci scalar, noting that the assumption of the variation of the metric vanishing at infinity does not hold in a spatially flat Friedmann universe.
  • Another participant points out that the integral of the Lagrangian over all spacetime does not converge for the spatially flat FRW spacetime, suggesting that the action is not well-defined.
  • A different participant mentions that despite the convergence issue, a modified definition of the action allows for the EFE to be valid everywhere if the variation of the metric vanishes on the boundary of the integration domain.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the typical approach in cosmology, where the usual action is affirmed without modification, and the energy-momentum tensor is calculated directly from it.
  • A reference to a paper is made, which presents a relationship involving the variation of the Ricci tensor and a vector field, though the participant has not yet verified it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the usual action in the context of a spatially flat Friedmann universe and the implications of convergence issues. There is no consensus on the necessity of modifying the action or the approach to deriving the EFE.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the definition of the action in cosmological models and the assumptions regarding the variation of the metric. The implications of these limitations on the derivation of the EFE remain unresolved.

yancey
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I should calculate the variation of the Ricci scalar to the metric ##\delta R/\delta g^{\mu\nu}##. According to ##\delta R=R_{\mu\nu}\delta g^{\mu\nu}+g^{\mu\nu}\delta R_{\mu\nu}##, ##\delta R_{\mu\nu}## should be calculated. I have referred to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Hilbert_action which provided the deduction below
$$g^{\mu\nu}\delta R_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{\sigma}(g^{\mu\nu}\delta\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\nu\mu}-g^{\mu\sigma}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\rho\mu}),$$
and this term can be converted to a total derivative when it's multiplied by ##\sqrt{-g}##:
$$\sqrt{-g}\nabla_{\sigma}(g^{\mu\nu}\delta\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\nu\mu}-g^{\mu\sigma}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\rho\mu})=\partial_{\sigma}[\sqrt{-g}(g^{\mu\nu}\delta\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\nu\mu}-g^{\mu\sigma}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\rho\mu})].$$
When we integrate it over the whole spacetime and assume that the variation of the metric ##\delta g^{\mu\nu}## vanishes at infinity, it will contribute nothing to the variation of the action ##\int dx^{4}\sqrt{-g}f(R)##.

However I'm considering things in the spatially flat Friedmann universe ##ds^{2}=dt^{2}-a^2(t)\delta_{ik}dx^{i}dx^{k}.## The assumption above can't be true any more. To make my question specific, could you compute ##\delta R/\delta g^{\mu\nu}## in the spatially flat Friedmann universe? Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yancey said:
The assumption above can't be true any more.

Actually, the problem comes even before that: for a spacetime like the spatially flat FRW spacetime, the integral of the Lagrangian over all spacetime does not converge, so the action is not well-defined. But, as the wiki page says, "a modified definition where one integrates over arbitrarily large, relatively compact domains, still yields the Einstein equation". So you just have to stipulate that the variation of the metric vanishes on the boundary of the domain over which you are integrating. Since you can do this for any domain you wish, it effectively amounts to the EFE being valid everywhere.
 
PeterDonis said:
Actually, the problem comes even before that...
Thanks for reminding me this. I really ignored the point you mentioned above. However I also have some confusions. In cosmology, people always use the usual action to describe inflation, eg. $$S=\int dx^4\sqrt{-g}[-\frac{1}{16\pi}-\frac{1}{2}(\partial _{\mu }\phi )^{2}-V(\phi)]$$for the scalar inflaton field ##\phi##. A strict method to deduce the evolution of the universe should be like this: First, modify the action above, considering that it's not "well-defined" for a spatially flat Friedmann universe. Second, use variational method on the new action and obtain the evolution equation of the universe.

However, people always process it like this: First, affirm the validity of the usual action and EFE. Second, calculate the energy-momentum tensor by ##T_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S^m}{\delta g^{\alpha\beta}}##. Third, substitute ##T_{\alpha\beta}## to the right hand side of the EFE. Back to my original question, here is a paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2068 which indirectly shows that $$g^{\alpha\gamma}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\delta R_{\mu\nu}}{\delta g^{\gamma\beta}}A_{\lambda}A^{\lambda}=(\delta^{\alpha}_{\beta}\Box-\nabla^{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta})A_{\lambda}A^{\lambda},$$where ##A_{\mu}## is some vector field. ( I haven't get it proved yet.)

You don't have to spend much time on this question unless you're very interested in it.:smile:
 
yancey said:
First, modify the action above, considering that it's not "well-defined" for a spatially flat Friedmann universe

The same comment applies here as for the OP: we can still derive the EFE for this case by considering a large, relatively compact domain, and observing that the derivation works for any such domain. The RHS of the EFE would then just be the stress-energy tensor derived from the action for the inflaton field.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
703
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K