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

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 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.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top