Relativistic Action Math Help: The Classical Theory of Fields

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical treatment of the action in the context of relativistic field theory, specifically as presented in "The Classical Theory of Fields" by Landau and Lifshitz. Participants seek clarification on the derivation of certain equations involving differentials and variations in the action.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the steps leading to the equation before 9.10 in the text, specifically the transition involving the variation of the action.
  • Another participant provides a formula for the variation of the line element, suggesting that the variation of the square root of the metric involves the derivatives of the coordinates.
  • A different viewpoint is presented regarding the treatment of differentials, with a participant asserting that the variation operator acts differently on the components of the four-vector notation.
  • Clarifications are made about the symmetry of the metric tensor and the manipulation of indices in the context of Einstein summation convention.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the correct application of the variation operator and its implications for the differentials involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct interpretation of the variation of the action and the treatment of differentials. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion regarding the application of the variation operator and the relationships between differentials in four-vector notation. There are unresolved questions about the assumptions made in the derivations presented in the text.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers interested in the mathematical foundations of relativistic field theory, particularly those grappling with the complexities of differential forms and variations in action principles.

electricspit
Messages
66
Reaction score
4
Hello! I'm currently going through The Classical Theory of Fields - Landau, Lifshitz and I needed a bit of help on some of the math going on in a certain section.

The book can be found here https://archive.org/details/TheClassicalTheoryOfFields

On page 27, they give the action as:

\delta S = -mc \delta \int\limits_a^b ds =0

With ds^2 = dx_i dx^i. The definition of ds does not bother me, but the steps they then take are very odd and I'm not quite sure how they obtain the equation before 9.10. If anyone could help that would be awesome!

If anyone doesn't want to open that PDF here is the line I'm speaking of, which they basically jump right into without explanation (it is assumed knowledge):

\delta S = -mc \int\limits_a^b \frac{dx_i \delta dx^i}{\sqrt{ds}}=-mc \int\limits_a^b u_i d\delta x^i

Where u_i = \frac{dx_i}{ds}.

Thanks!

EDIT: I guess this should have been posted in the Relativity subforum, whoops.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
##\delta ds = \delta (dx_i dx^i)^{1/2} = ds^{-1}dx_i \delta dx^i = u_i d \delta x^i## where I have used ##d \delta x^i = \delta dx^i##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I think you forgot a square root:

\delta ds = \delta \sqrt{dx_i dx^i} = \frac{1}{2} dx_i \delta dx^i ds^{-1/2}

and therein lies my question, why is dx^i effected by \delta whereas dx_i apparently not?

I suppose we have:

\sqrt{ds} = \frac{ds}{\sqrt{ds}}

Which would give the integrand as:

\frac{dx_i \delta dx^i \sqrt{ds}}{2\bullet ds}

Which would yield:

\frac{1}{2} u_i \delta dx^i \sqrt{ds}I don't know if I'm using the \delta operator correctly. I'm assuming it means find the differentials.
 
I didn't forget a square root. ##\delta (dx_i dx^i)^{1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(dx_i dx^i)^{-1/2}\delta(dx_i dx^i) = ds^{-1}dx_i \delta dx^i = u_i d \delta x^i##.

The line ##\frac{1}{2}(dx_i dx^i)^{-1/2}\delta(dx_i dx^i) = ds^{-1}dx_i \delta dx^i## makes use of ##ds = (dx_i dx^i)^{1/2}##
and ##\delta (dx_i dx^i) = dx_i \delta dx^i + dx^i \delta dx_i = 2dx_i \delta dx^i##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Oh my I'm out of it apparently, thank you.

Also thank you for the explanation of the rest, I really appreciate it. Working with differentials isn't my strong point (hopefully it will be soon!).

Why is the last line true, I'm also new to four vector notation and the relations between them.
 
Last edited:
electricspit said:
Why is the last line true, I'm also new to four vector notation and the relations between them.

##dx_i \delta dx^i = dx^i \delta dx_i## (these are dummy indices so you can move them up and down at whim without changing the expression so long as Einstein summation is obeyed)

More explicitly ##dx_i \delta dx^i = g_{ij}dx^i \delta dx^j = g_{ji}dx^j \delta dx^i = g_{ij}dx^j \delta dx^i = dx^j \delta dx_j = dx^i \delta dx_i## where ##g_{ij}## is the metric tensor and I have used the fact that it is symmetric in its indices as well as the fact that I can relabel dummy indices to whatever I want as long as Einstein summation is obeyed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Right, I remember reading in this text that:

A^i = - A_i

so moving one up and the other down would cause no sign change.

Thank you again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
949
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K