Ignoring boundary term in the action

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter davidge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Boundary Term
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of ignoring the boundary term in the action when varying the Einstein-Hilbert action, specifically the term $$\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}g^{ab} \delta R_{ab}$$. It is established that this term can be omitted only when the manifold is both compact and without boundary, as per the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding the conditions under which boundary terms are necessary, particularly in relation to Minkowski and Schwarzschild spacetimes, which are examples of non-compact manifolds without boundaries at finite distances.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein-Hilbert action and its variation
  • Familiarity with Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term
  • Knowledge of Stokes' theorem and its application in differential geometry
  • Concept of compact and non-compact manifolds in the context of General Relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term in General Relativity
  • Learn about the application of Stokes' theorem in the context of manifold boundaries
  • Explore the characteristics of compact versus non-compact manifolds in theoretical physics
  • Investigate the role of boundary terms in the variational principles of field theories
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, mathematicians specializing in differential geometry, and students of General Relativity seeking to deepen their understanding of manifold properties and their implications in gravitational theories.

  • #31
What I mean is, "let the natural coordinates --just the label of the points of ##\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{S}^2##-- be ##(t,r, \theta, \phi)##. Now, let's consider a metric space, namely ##\mathbb{R}^4## with its usual metric."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
davidge said:
What I mean is, let the natural coordinates --just label of the points of ##\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{S}^2##-- be ##(t,r, \theta, \phi)##. Now, let's consider a metric space, namely ##\mathbb{R}^4## with its usual metric.

Why do you want to do this? It makes no sense.

Also, you still haven't understood: you need to understand the properties of a topological space without using any embedding of that space in another space.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of continuing to repeat the same advice and have a discussion if you continue to ignore that advice.
 
  • #33
The OP question in this thread has been answered, and the thread is closed. @davidge if you want to ask questions about the topological concept of a manifold with boundary, you can do that in the appropriate math forum; but please take the time to work through a textbook first.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
984
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K