I Variation of matter action under diffeomorphism (Carroll)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on queries regarding Carroll's derivation of matter action under diffeomorphism, specifically concerning the symmetrization of terms and the integration by parts process. Participants seek clarification on the implications of metric symmetry and the treatment of variations in the context of tensor indices. There is confusion about whether the variation of the action, denoted as ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}##, should be treated as a fraction or a single symbol, and how it relates to contravariant indices. The conversation also touches on the application of Stokes' theorem in simplifying integrals involving divergence. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of variational calculus in the context of general relativity.
chartery
Messages
42
Reaction score
5
Queries on Carroll's derivation of matter action ## S_M ## under a diffeomorphism:

(Book B.23+4 Notes 5.35+6)

##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{\delta S_{M}} {\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \left( 2 \nabla _{(\mu}V_{\nu)} \right) =\left( 2 \right) \frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}\nabla _{\mu}V_{\nu}##

He explains dropping the symmetrisation by symmetry of the fraction, but would the double contraction not do so irrespective of metric symmetry?Also (Book B.25 Notes 5.37)

##0 = \int d^{n}x \frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}\nabla _{\mu}V_{\nu} = -\int d^{n}x \sqrt{-g} V_{\nu}\nabla _{\mu}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \right)##

Could someone explain the steps to get right hand side from left (of second equality)?

Please, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the first, ##A^{\mu \nu} B_{(\mu \nu )} = \frac{1}{2} A^{\mu \nu} (B_{\mu \nu} + B_{\nu \mu}) = \frac{1}{2}(A^{\mu \nu} + A^{\nu \mu}) B_{\mu \nu} = A^{(\mu \nu)} B_{\mu \nu}##
And if ##A^{\mu \nu}## is symmetric then ##A^{(\mu \nu)} = A^{\mu \nu}##.

Your second equality is integration by parts (note ##\nabla \sqrt{-g} = 0##).
 
ergospherical said:
For the first, ##A^{\mu \nu} B_{(\mu \nu )} = \frac{1}{2} A^{\mu \nu} (B_{\mu \nu} + B_{\nu \mu}) = \frac{1}{2}(A^{\mu \nu} + A^{\nu \mu}) B_{\mu \nu} = A^{(\mu \nu)} B_{\mu \nu}##
And if ##A^{\mu \nu}## is symmetric then ##A^{(\mu \nu)} = A^{\mu \nu}##.
@ergospherical, thanks very much.

I wasn't doubting that logic, just wondering whether my application of index rules was shaky. It seemed to me that the combination of symmetry ## \nabla _{(\mu}V_{\nu)} ## with the dual contraction meant there was no need to rely on symmetry of the ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## term?
Or even, if ##A^{(\mu \nu)} = A^{\mu \nu}##, why not ## \nabla _{(\mu}V_{\nu)} = \nabla _{\mu}V_{\nu}## ?

EDIT: Oops, the last sentence highlighted my confusion (between notation and actual symmetry), so please ignore above queries and instead:

Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## effectively contravariant in the two indices, to conform to the summation convention? Is it as straightforward as ##\left( \delta g_{\mu\nu} \right)^{-1} = \delta g^{\mu\nu}## ?
ergospherical said:
Your second equality is integration by parts (note ##\nabla \sqrt{-g} = 0##).
For the absent antiderivative:

Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## a fraction with ##\delta S_{M} =0##,
or is it a single symbol, zeroed with boundary conditions,
or some other reason ? :oldsmile:
 
Last edited:
chartery said:
Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## effectively contravariant in the two indices, to conform to the summation convention? Is it as straightforward as ##\left( \delta g_{\mu\nu} \right)^{-1} = \delta g^{\mu\nu}## ?
Downstairs indices in the denominator count as upstairs indices, yes.

For the second sentence you have to be careful. Remember ##\delta^{\mu}_{\nu} = g^{\mu \rho} g_{\rho \nu}##, and taking the variation ##0 = g^{\mu \rho} \delta g_{\rho \nu} + \delta g^{\mu \rho} g_{\rho \nu}## and hence ##\delta g^{\mu \nu} = -g^{\mu \rho} g^{\nu \sigma} \delta g_{\rho \sigma}##.

chartery said:
For the absent antiderivative:

Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## a fraction with ##\delta S_{M} =0##,
or is it a single symbol, zeroed with boundary conditions,
or some other reason ? :oldsmile:
You can turn it into
\begin{align*}
\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \nabla_{\mu} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_M}{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} V_{\nu} \right)
\end{align*}
And for any vector ##X^{\mu}## which vanishes sufficiently fast towards infinity then
\begin{align*}
\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \nabla_{\mu} X^{\mu} = \int d^4 x \partial_{\mu} (\sqrt{-g} X^{\mu}) = \int_{\partial} dS_{\mu} X^{\mu} \sqrt{-g} = 0
\end{align*}
by Stokes, where we used the divergence formula ##{X^{\mu}}_{;\mu} = (-g)^{-1/2} ((-g)^{1/2} X^{\mu})_{,\mu}## in the first equality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes chartery and PeroK
@ergospherical, again many thanks.

Self-taught, I realise I don't have enough knowledge of variational (and tensor) manipulations, but there does seem to be a lot of casually presupposed ability packed suddenly into that one bald equality in his notes !
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...