Invariance of Action: Lagrangian Transformation

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kent davidge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Invariance
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation properties of the Lagrangian ##\mathcal L_e## under reparametrization, specifically focusing on the invariance of action in the context of Lagrangian mechanics. Participants explore the derivation of transformation equations, the implications of these transformations, and the behavior of fields under diffeomorphisms.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the transformation of the Lagrangian ##\mathcal L_e## and questions a specific expression in the transformation equation, suggesting a possible error in the paper they are referencing.
  • Another participant provides a detailed derivation of the transformation of ##\mathcal L_e##, including various variations and their implications, and concludes that certain conditions must hold for the right-hand side of the transformation to vanish.
  • Questions are raised about the nature of variations, specifically whether they are derived from the invariance of the action, and how the variation of the inverse of the field ##e## should be interpreted.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definitions of variations and their relationships to the transformations of coordinates and fields under diffeomorphisms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of specific transformation expressions and the interpretation of variations. There is no consensus on the derivation methods or the implications of the transformations discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the behavior of fields and coordinates under transformations, and the derivations depend on the definitions of variations and the specific forms of the Lagrangian involved. Some steps in the derivation remain unresolved, and the implications of the transformations are not fully agreed upon.

kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
The Lagragian ##\mathcal L_e = e(\lambda)^{-1} \mathcal L - \frac{1}{2}m^2 e(\lambda)##, with ##\mathcal L## not depending on ##\lambda##, transform as ##\delta L_e = \frac{d}{d\lambda} (\epsilon (\lambda) \mathcal L_e)##* under the reparametrization ##\lambda \rightarrow \lambda + \epsilon(\lambda)##, according to a paper that I'm reading.

Above I reproduced the expressions exactly how they are given in the paper. However, I think there's a mistake in *. Shouldn't the right-hand-side be ##\delta (\epsilon (\lambda) \mathcal L_e)## instead?

Also, I was able to derive * myself only for the second term in ##\mathcal L_e##. Does anyone know how to derive for the first term?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kent davidge said:
The Lagragian ##\mathcal L_e = e(\lambda)^{-1} \mathcal L - \frac{1}{2}m^2 e(\lambda)##, with ##\mathcal L## not depending on ##\lambda##, transform as ##\delta L_e = \frac{d}{d\lambda} (\epsilon (\lambda) \mathcal L_e)##* under the reparametrization ##\lambda \rightarrow \lambda + \epsilon(\lambda)##, according to a paper that I'm reading.
I will assuming that you know that under [itex]\tau \to \tau + \epsilon (\tau)[/itex], we have [itex]\delta x (\tau) = - \epsilon (\tau) \ \dot{x} (\tau)[/itex] , [itex]\delta e (\tau ) = - \frac{d}{d \tau} ( \epsilon (\tau ) \ e (\tau) )[/itex] and [itex]\delta \dot{x} (\tau) = - \frac{d}{d \tau} ( \epsilon (\tau) \ \dot{x}(\tau) )[/itex].
Now,
[tex]\delta \mathcal{L}_{e} = e^{-1} \ \delta \mathcal{L}(x , \dot{x}) - e^{-2} \ \mathcal{L} (x , \dot{x}) \ \delta e - \frac{1}{2}m^{2} \ \delta e ,[/tex] or
[tex]\delta \mathcal{L}_{e} = e^{-1} \ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x} \ \delta x + e^{-1} \ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{x}} \ \delta \dot{x} - e^{-2} \ \mathcal{L} \ \delta e - \frac{1}{2}m^{2} \ \delta e .[/tex] Next, if you substitute the above transformations, then with a bit of algebra you obtain
[tex]\delta \mathcal{L}_{e} = - \frac{d}{d \tau} \left( \epsilon \ ( e^{-1} \ \mathcal{L} - \frac{1}{2}m^{2} \ e ) \right) + e^{-1} \ \frac{d \epsilon}{d \tau} \left( 2 \mathcal{L} - \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{x}} \ \dot{x} \right) .[/tex] That is
[tex]\delta \mathcal{L}_{e} + \frac{d}{d \tau} \left( \epsilon \ \mathcal{L}_{e}\right) = e^{-1} \ \frac{d \epsilon}{d \tau}\left( 2 \mathcal{L} - \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{x}} \ \dot{x} \right) .[/tex] The RHS vanishes if and only if [itex]\mathcal{L}(x , \dot{x})[/itex] is a homogeneous function of degree two in [itex]\dot{x}[/itex]. That is
[tex]\delta \mathcal{L}_{e} + \frac{d}{d \tau} (\epsilon \ \mathcal{L}_{e}) = 0 \ \ \Leftrightarrow \ \ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{x}} \ \dot{x} - 2 \mathcal{L} = 0.[/tex] This is the case when [itex]\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{x}^{2}[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge
Thanks @samalkhaiat, I understood your solution, but I have two questions:

1 - is ##\delta e^{-1} = (\partial e^{-1}/ \partial e) (\partial e / \partial \tau) \delta \tau##?

2 - are the form of the variations you give in the beginning of your post obtained by requiring invariance of the action?
 
kent davidge said:
Thanks @samalkhaiat,
1 - is ##\delta e^{-1} = (\partial e^{-1}/ \partial e) (\partial e / \partial \tau) \delta \tau##?
No, the variation symbol [itex]\delta[/itex] is a Lie derivative, i.e., it is a derivation but not a differential. So [tex]\delta e^{-1} = \left( \frac{d}{d e} e^{-1} \right) \delta e ,[/tex] but (as we will see below), [tex]\delta e \neq \frac{d e}{d \tau} \delta \tau = \frac{d e}{d \tau} \epsilon (\tau) .[/tex]

2 - are the form of the variations you give in the beginning of your post obtained by requiring invariance of the action?
Yes, you can show that the invariance of the action [itex]S[x , e][/itex] under the diffeomorphism [itex]\tau \to \bar{\tau} = \bar{\tau} (\tau)[/itex] implies (and is implied by) the following:

1) The coordinates behave like scalar fields, i.e., [tex]x (\tau) \to \bar{x} (\bar{\tau}) = x (\tau).[/tex] So, for the infinitesimal diffeomorphism [itex]\bar{\tau} = \tau + \epsilon (\tau)[/itex], we have, to first order in [itex]\epsilon[/itex], [tex]\bar{x}(\tau) = x ( \tau - \epsilon ) = x (\tau ) - \epsilon (\tau) \ \frac{d}{d \tau}x(\tau) = x (\tau) - \epsilon (\tau) \dot{x} (\tau) .[/tex] The variation (or the Lie derivative) [itex]\delta x (\tau)[/itex] is defined by [tex]\delta x (\tau) \equiv \bar{x}(\tau) - x (\tau).[/tex] This clearly leads to [itex]\delta x (\tau) = - \epsilon (\tau) \dot{x}(\tau)[/itex].

2) The [itex]e (\tau)[/itex] field behaves as scalar density[*]: [tex]e (\tau) \to \bar{e}(\bar{\tau}) = \left( \frac{d \bar{\tau}}{d \tau} \right)^{-1} e ( \tau ) .[/tex] Again, infinitesimally, we have [tex]\bar{e} (\tau + \epsilon ) = \left( 1 + \frac{d \epsilon}{d \tau} \right)^{-1} e ( \tau ) .[/tex] Expanding both sides to first order in [itex]\epsilon[/itex], we get [tex]\bar{e} (\tau) + \epsilon \ \frac{d}{d \tau} e ( \tau ) = \left( 1 - \frac{d \epsilon}{d \tau} \right) e ( \tau ) .[/tex] Note that in the second term on the left hand side we replaced [itex]\bar{e}( \tau )[/itex] by [itex]e ( \tau )[/itex] which is allowed by our first order approximations. Indeed [tex]\epsilon \ \frac{d}{d \tau} \bar{e}( \tau ) = \epsilon \ \frac{d}{d \tau} e ( \tau ) + \mathcal{O} (\epsilon^{2}).[/tex] So, as usual, the Lie derivative of [itex]e[/itex] is given by [tex]\delta e (\tau) \equiv \bar{e}(\tau) - e (\tau) = - \epsilon (\tau) \ \frac{d}{d \tau} \bar{e} (\tau) - e (\tau) \ \frac{d}{d \tau} \epsilon (\tau) = - \frac{d}{d \tau} \left( \epsilon (\tau) e (\tau)\right) .[/tex]

------------------------

[*] Imagine a one-dimensional manifold with symmetric metric “tensor” [itex]g_{\tau \tau}(\tau)[/itex]. The square of distances on such manifold is given by [tex]ds^{2} = g_{\tau \tau} (\tau) \ d \tau d \tau , \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ ds = \sqrt{g_{\tau \tau}(\tau)} \ d \tau \equiv e (\tau) \ d \tau ,[/tex] where we have defined the (frame) field [itex]e (\tau) \equiv \sqrt{g_{\tau \tau}(\tau)}[/itex] Now, the invariance of the distance [itex]ds = d \bar{s}[/itex] under arbitrary general coordinate transformations [itex]\tau \to \bar{\tau} = \bar{\tau}(\tau)[/itex], implies that the frame field [itex]e (\tau)[/itex] transforms as scalar density: [tex]\bar{e}( \bar{\tau} ) \ d \bar{\tau} = e ( \tau ) \ d \tau \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \bar{e}(\bar{\tau}) = \left( \frac{d \bar{\tau}}{d \tau} \right)^{-1} e ( \tau ) .[/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge, strangerep and Greg Bernhardt

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K