What Happens to Euler-Lagrange in Field Theories (ADM)?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the application of the Euler-Lagrange equations in the context of field theories, particularly in relation to the ADM (Arnowitt-Deser-Misner) formulation of general relativity. Participants explore the compatibility of equations of motion derived from different formulations of the action, questioning how rewriting the integral affects the resulting equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the standard form of the equations of motion for non-relativistic and relativistic field theories, expressing confusion about the compatibility of these forms when applying a time-splitting approach in ADM.
  • Another participant questions their own understanding of the derived equation of motion, seeking confirmation or correction from others.
  • A different participant asserts that the equations of motion remain unchanged regardless of how the integral is rewritten, emphasizing that the action itself is what is extremized.
  • Another contribution suggests a more general formulation of the equations of motion using the variation of the action, discussing the implications of integrating by parts and the importance of boundary terms in the action.
  • One participant proposes viewing the particle case as a one-dimensional field theory, contrasting it with the higher-dimensional nature of general relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of rewriting the action and the resulting equations of motion. There is no consensus on the compatibility of the equations derived from different formulations, and some participants are uncertain about their own positions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need to consider boundary conditions and the behavior of fields at infinity, which may affect the validity of certain assumptions in the derivations.

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello,

So in the familiar case of non-relativistic particle Lagrangians/actions, we know the equations of motions are given by \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial x^i} = \frac{\mathrm d }{\mathrm dt} \left( \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \dot x^i} \right)

In the familiar case of relativistic field theory Lagrangians/actions, we have
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \phi} = \partial_\mu \left( \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta ( \partial_\mu \phi )} \right)

However, it seems that if we now choose a time-splitting, like for example in ADM where the essence is to rewrite S = \int \mathrm d^4 x \; \mathcal L(g_{\mu \nu}, \partial_\rho g_{\mu \nu}) as \boxed{ S = \int \mathrm d t \; \mathrm d^3 x \; \mathcal L(g_{i j}, \partial_k g_{i j}, \dot g_{ij}, N, N^i)}

In this case it seems the equation of motion is given by
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta g_{ij}} = \frac{\mathrm d }{\mathrm dt} \left( \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta ( \dot g_{ij} )} \right)

This seems a bit weird. Is it obvious the latter two equations of motions are compatible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In fact, I might be completely wrong about that last equation of motion. I suppose that would resolve my confusion. Can anyone confirm/disconfirm my last equation of motion? Thanks!
 
The equations of motion do not change just because you rewrite the integral. The action is still a four-dimensional integral and the action is what you extremise.
 
I find it more straightforward to write the equations of motion as

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi} = 0$$
for any field ##\varphi##. The variation operator ##\delta## behaves very much like a differentiation operator, e.g.

$$\delta (A_\mu A^\mu) = \delta (g^{\mu\nu} A_\mu A_\nu) = A_\mu A_\nu \, \delta g^{\mu\nu} + 2 g^{\mu\nu} A_\mu \, \delta A_\nu.$$
If your action has derivatives in it (as it must to give dynamical equations of motion), then you will have to integrate by parts to move derivatives off of ##\delta## terms and onto the usual fields:

$$\delta (\partial_\mu \varphi \partial^\mu \varphi) = 2 \partial_\mu \varphi \, \delta (\partial^\mu \varphi) \overset{\text{i.b.p.}}{\longrightarrow} - 2 \partial^\mu \partial_\mu \varphi \, \delta \varphi.$$
In such cases, strictly speaking you must take into account boundary terms in your action. Usually the boundary is at infinity and you assume sufficiently fast fall-off of your fields that the boundary terms are zero. But if you do anything that violates these assumptions, take care.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PWiz and vanhees71
You should view the particle case as a 1-dimensional field theory, whereas GR is in general a D-dim. field theory.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
943
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K