I Variation of matter action under diffeomorphism (Carroll)

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 !
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top