Simplifying Equation (14) from Zee's Einstein Gravity for PhD Students

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter russelljbarry15
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the simplification of equation (14) from Zee's book "Einstein Gravity." Participants are exploring the mathematical steps involved in eliminating square roots from the equation, focusing on the application of calculus and variations in the context of theoretical physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how the square roots are eliminated, referencing the use of the derivative definition without the delta x in the denominator.
  • Another participant suggests expanding the expression under the first radical and rationalizing it, noting that this leads to a numerator matching the last line of the equation, while the denominator differs.
  • A third participant proposes that the process involves straightforward differentiation, specifically using the relation δ(√A) = (1/√A)(½δA) to place L in the denominator, and elaborates on the variations of A as a product involving derivatives of X.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the method used to simplify the equation, with multiple interpretations and approaches being discussed.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the assumptions made in the differentiation process and the treatment of higher-order variations, which may affect the clarity of the simplification steps.

russelljbarry15
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I am looking for help on page 128 equation (14) from zee's book Einstein Gravity.
A lot of you may not have the book. I have a phd and cannot see it, feel really really stupid.


How did he get rid of the square roots. I know that he used the definition of the derivative from basic calculus without the delta x on the bottom. In the first square root he varied the action so that L moves to the bottom. You need the second g so the taylor series starts off with a derivative.

How does the square root go away when the second part is not varied.

I will use different symbols from the book, but they are only dummy variables so I can change them.
Plus it makes it easier to write out the equation.

∂gκμδX = gκμ(X(λ) + δX(λ)) - gκμ(X(λ))

so you need the second term. Please remember κ and μ are just dummy variables so I am free to choose them, as long as I carry them through. The κ and μ are indices.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah I'm not seeing what he did there either...
 
You expand what's under the first radical, ignoring higher order variations, then you rationalize the expression and you get in the numerator what he has in the parentheses in the last line. The denominator is different not just L, but I suppose it is of the same order.
 
Isn't it just straightforward differentiation? With L = √A he used δ(√A) = (1/√A)(½δA). That puts the L in the denominator. Then with A = a product, A = gμν dXμ/dλ dXν/dλ,

δA = (δgμν) dXμ/dλ dXν/dλ + gμν δdXμ/dλ dXν/dλ + gμν dXμ/dλ δdXν/dλ

= gμν,σ dXσ dXμ/dλ dXν/dλ + gμν dδXμ/dλ dXν/dλ + gμν dXμ/dλ dδXν/dλ
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
962
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K