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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Euler-Lagrange equations in the context of field theories, particularly in the ADM (Arnowitt-Deser-Misner) formulation. It establishes that the equations of motion for relativistic field theories can be expressed as \(\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta g_{ij}} = \frac{\mathrm d }{\mathrm dt} \left( \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta ( \dot g_{ij} )} \right\). The participants confirm that rewriting the action integral does not alter the fundamental equations of motion, which remain valid as long as the action is extremized. The discussion also emphasizes the importance of boundary terms when integrating by parts in variational calculus.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics and the Euler-Lagrange equation
  • Familiarity with the ADM formalism in general relativity
  • Knowledge of variational calculus and integration by parts
  • Basic concepts of field theory and dynamical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the ADM formalism in detail, focusing on its implications for general relativity
  • Learn about variational principles in field theories and their applications
  • Explore the role of boundary terms in variational calculus
  • Investigate the relationship between classical mechanics and field theories
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in physics, and researchers interested in the foundations of field theory and general relativity.

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
550
  • · 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