Varying an Action in Zee's GR Book

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dm4b
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around varying an action from Zee's General Relativity book, specifically focusing on the first term in Eq (9) on page 244. Participants are exploring the technicalities of varying this action without simplifying it, as well as the implications of parametrization choices in the context of both Minkowski and general metrics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in reproducing the variation of the action as presented by Zee, noting the presence of a 1/L factor that they believe should not be there.
  • Another participant identifies a potential connection between the action in question and a similar action discussed earlier in the book, suggesting that the choice of parametrization might explain the discrepancy in the factor L.
  • A third participant shares a link that may provide additional context or clarification regarding the geodesic equation, though its relevance is not explicitly stated.
  • One participant claims to have resolved their confusion by referring back to an earlier chapter, indicating that the answer was found in Chapter 2, page 125.
  • A later reply discusses the reparameterization invariance of the action and proposes a method for relating variations in the parameter λ to variations in the coordinates, suggesting a way to align with Zee's results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach consensus on the correct treatment of the action's variation or the implications of the parametrization choice. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the presence of the 1/L factor and its resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific equations and pages from Zee's book, indicating that their understanding is contingent on the definitions and context provided therein. The discussion highlights unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions related to the parametrization of the action.

dm4b
Messages
363
Reaction score
4
Hi,

I'm reading Zee's new GR book right now and ran across an action I am having trouble "varying". It's the first term in Eq (9), page 244. Looks like this:

S=-m\int d\tau \sqrt{-\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{dx^{\mu }}{d\tau }\frac{dx^{\nu }}{d\tau }}

I'm familiar with the trick that gets rid of the square root as outlined by guys like Carrol, as well as Zee. But, I want to tackle this thing head on the hard way w/o the trick ;-)

But, I'm getting stuck reproducing what Zee has in Eq (10)

\delta \left ( -m\int d\tau \sqrt{-\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{dx^{\mu }}{d\tau }\frac{dx^{\nu }}{d\tau }} \: \right )=m\int d\tau \; \eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{dx^{\mu }}{d\tau }\frac{d\delta x^{\nu }}{d\tau }

I get the same thing, but with a 1/L included, because the root won't go away.

Anybody know the trick? Or does Zee have a typo? Can't be me, right? ;-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I figured out what is going on here, but it only raised another question.

On page 128 he varies the exact same action, but with the Minkowski metric replaced with the full-blown GR metric dependent upon X.

Sure enough, he has the 1/L factor here and the exact same result I get when I start to vary this action too.

But he then goes on to say we should exploit the freedom in choosing the parametrization, by choosing length parametrization, thereby making L=1.

I don't get why that makes L = 1, in either problem. Although, I guess it explains where it went to in the equations I cited in the OP.

Anybody know why L=1 here?
 
I don't know, but maybe this helps...

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/geodesic_equation.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I actually ended up figuring this out, the answer was in the beginning of Chapt 2. Page 125.
 
Write
d \lambda = \left( d x_{ \mu } d x^{ \mu } \right)^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } }
then
<br /> \delta ( d \lambda ) = \frac{ d x_{ \mu } }{ d \lambda } \ \delta ( d x^{ \mu } ) = \frac{ d x_{ \mu } }{ d \lambda } \ \frac{ d }{ d \lambda } \left( \delta x^{ \mu } \right) \ d \lambda<br />
Now, (because of reparameterization invariance of the action) you can set \lambda = \tau in the integrand on the RHS.

Sam
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
709
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
865
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K