Why must the second term on the right-hand side vanish in string theory?

AI Thread Summary
In string theory, the second term on the right-hand side of equation 6.52 must vanish due to the principle of least action, which states that the variation of the action must equal zero. This condition arises because the boundary values of integration are chosen to vanish, leading to the conclusion that the second term is zero when combined with the requirement that the first term also vanishes. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding these foundational principles in theoretical physics. Participants express appreciation for the supportive community that aids in overcoming academic challenges. Engaging with complex topics in string theory can be rewarding and enjoyable.
StenEdeback
Messages
65
Reaction score
38
Homework Statement
There is one statement in the text of the attached picture that I do not understand
Relevant Equations
See text below
I am doing private studies in string theory and am reading "A first course in string theory" by Barton Zwiebach. Below equation 6.52 the author
says "Since the second term on the right-hand side must vanish...". I do not understand why this term must vanish, and I would be grateful for an explanation.

Sten Edebäck

IMG_0026.PNG
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first term on the RHS should vanish because of the choice that boundary values of integration vanish, and the second term on the RHS is zero follows from this and ##\delta S=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback
Thank you! A good explanation! Physics Forums is indeed a valuable last resort for me doing private studies, when I cannot find the answers to my questions by googling. Physics Forums is the equivalent of a supporting professor to me. And I feel a true joy when I overcome a hurdle and can go on with my studies. Theoretical Physics is really fun!
 
  • Like
Likes Hamiltonian, Amrator, pinball1970 and 4 others
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top