I Solving for Extrema of Proper Time Integral

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kashmir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proper time Time
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on extremizing the proper time integral, specifically the integral of the form ∫dτ = ∫(dt² - dx² - dy² - dz²)^(1/2). A participant seeks assistance in applying the calculus of variations to solve this integral, referencing methods from Mary Boas' mathematical methods book. The conversation includes a detailed explanation of the Euler-Lagrange equations and their application to the problem, emphasizing the need to parametrize the worldline and derive the equations governing the motion. Additionally, the importance of foundational texts like Neuenschwander's book for understanding these concepts in general relativity is highlighted. The thread ultimately seeks clarification on terminology and simplification of the presented mathematical framework.
Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
The question is to extremize the proper time : ##\begin{aligned}\int d\tau=\int ( dt^{2}-dx^{2}\\ -dy^{2} \\ -dz^2)^{1/2} \end{aligned}##

I've studied calculus of variations somewhat and a can solve a similar problem which I found in the mathematical methods book the author Mary Boas. The way she solves a similar problem is shown below, however I can't use that method for my problem of extremising the proper time above.

I would like to get some help to solve the above integral similar to the way shown below :

Given a problem to find ##y## that makes the integral stationary ##
I=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} F\left(x, y, y^{\prime}\right) d x
##
where ##F## is a given function. The ##y(x)## which makes ##I## stationary is called an extremal whether ##I## is a maximum or minimum or neither. We consider a set of varied curves ##
Y(x)=y(x)+\epsilon \eta(x)
##
just as before. Then we have
##
I(\epsilon)=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} F\left(x, Y, Y^{\prime}\right) d x,
##
and we want ##(d / d \epsilon) I(\epsilon)=0## when ##\epsilon=0##. Remembering that ##Y##and ##Y^{\prime}## are functions of ##\epsilon##, and differentiating under the integral sign with respect to ##\epsilon##, we get
##
\frac{d I}{d \epsilon}=\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y} \frac{d Y}{d \epsilon}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y^{\prime}} \frac{d Y^{\prime}}{d \epsilon}\right) d x .
##

Substituting (2.1) and (2.5) into (2.11), we have
##\frac{d I}{d \epsilon}=\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\left[\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y} \eta(x)+\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y^{\prime}} \eta^{\prime}(x)\right] d x ##
We want ##d I / d \epsilon=0## at ##\epsilon=0##; recall that ##\epsilon=0## means ##Y=y## Then (2.12) gives
##\left(\frac{d I}{d \epsilon}\right)_{\epsilon=0}=\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\left[\frac{\partial F}{\partial y} \eta(x)+\frac{\partial F}{\partial y^{\prime}} \eta^{\prime}(x)\right] d x=0 ##

Assuming that ##y^{\prime \prime}## is continuous, we can integrate the second term by parts just as in the straight-line problem:
##
\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \frac{\partial F}{\partial y^{\prime}} \eta^{\prime}(x) d x=\left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial y^{\prime}} \eta(x)\right|_{x_1} ^{x_2}-\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \frac{d}{d x}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial y^{\prime}}\right) \eta(x) d x .
##
The integrated term is zero as before because ##\eta(x)## is zero at ##x_1## and ##x_2####
\left(\frac{d I}{d \epsilon}\right)_{\epsilon=0}=\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\left[\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}-\frac{d}{d x} \frac{\partial F}{\partial y^{\prime}}\right] \eta(x) d x=0 .
##
since ##\eta(x)## is arbitrary, we must have
##
\frac{d}{d x} \frac{\partial F}{\partial y^{\prime}}-\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}=0 . \quad \text { Euler equation }
##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to parametrize the worldline with an arbitrary parameter ##\lambda##. The Lagrangian then reads
$$L=\sqrt{\dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}^{\nu} \eta_{\mu \nu}},$$
where ##\dot{x}^{\mu}=\mathrm{d}_{\lambda} x^{\mu}##. The "canonical momenta" are
$$p_{\mu} = \partial_{\dot{x}^{\mu}} L = \frac{\dot{x}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{\dot{x}^{\rho} \dot{x}^{\sigma} \eta_{\rho \sigma}}}=\mathrm{d}_{\tau} x^{\mu}.$$
Then the Euler-Lagrange equations say
$$\dot{p}_{\mu} = 0.$$
Now
$$\dot{p}_{\mu} = (\mathrm{d}_{\lambda} \tau) \mathrm{d}_{\tau} p_{\mu}=0 \; \Rightarrow \; \mathrm{d}_{\tau} p_{\mu}=0 \; \Rightarrow \; \mathrm{d}_{\tau}^2 x^{\mu}=0 \; \Rightarrow \; x^{\mu}=p_{0}^{\mu} \tau + x_0^{\mu}$$
with ##p_0^{\mu}=\text{const}## and ##x_0^{\mu}=\text{const}##.
 
Can you please simplify it ? I can't understand the terminology.
 
Kashmir said:
Can you please simplify it ? I can't understand the terminology.
There's a proof of the Euler-Lagrange equations in the more general case in Neuenschwander's book Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem. We have a functional:
$$J = \int_a^b L(t, x^{\mu}, \dot x^{\mu}) \ dt$$The ##\{x^{\mu}(t)\}## that make ##J## extremal satisfy:
$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial x^{\mu}} = \frac{d}{dt}\bigg (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x^{\mu}} \bigg )$$Hartle doesn't give a proof of this but obviously uses the result, e.g. in equations (5.56) and later.

Additionally for GR, of course, you have to take ##t = x^0## and use some dummy parameter ##\sigma##. So, you have something like:
$$\tau_{ab} = \int_a^b d\tau = \int_a^b\big [-g_{\alpha \beta}dx^{\alpha}dx^{\beta} \big]^{\frac 1 2}$$$$= \int_0^1\big [-g_{\alpha \beta}\frac{dx^{\alpha}}{d\sigma}\frac{dx^{\beta}}{d\sigma} \big]^{\frac 1 2} \ d\sigma$$Where, without loss of generality, I've assumed ##\sigma \in [0,1]##.

Note that we have $$L = \frac{d\tau}{d\sigma} = \big [-g_{\alpha \beta}\frac{dx^{\alpha}}{d\sigma}\frac{dx^{\beta}}{d\sigma} \big]^{\frac 1 2}$$And, if you have ##g_{\alpha \beta} = \eta_{\alpha \beta}##, then the Euler-Lagrange equations yield:$$\frac{d^2x^{\mu}}{d\tau^2} = 0$$which is equation (5.62) in my edition of Hartle.
 
PS The first few chapters of Neuenschwander's book (or equivalent) are almost essential prerequisites for GR (and, in fact, most advanced modern physics). The basic calculus of variations in Boas may leave too much of a gap.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
424
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K