Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles

In summary, Carroll derives the geodesic equation by extremizing the proper time functional. He writes:What I am unclear on is the step in 3.47. I understand that the four velocity is normalized to -1 for timelike paths, but if the value of f is fixed, how can we vary it at all?I've dug into this question before and my conclusion is that what Carroll is doing here doesn't make sense. Not that it doesn't give you the right answer, but just that he hasn't justified his approach.
  • #1
hawkdron496
19
3
TL;DR Summary
Trying to understand a trick Carroll uses to derive the geodesic equation by extremizing proper time
On pages 106-107 of Spacetime & Geometry, Carroll derives the geodesic equation by extremizing the proper time functional. He writes:
1662173240096.png

What I am unclear on is the step in 3.47. I understand that the four velocity is normalized to -1 for timelike paths, but if the value of f is fixed, how can we vary it at all?
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I've dug into this question before and my conclusion is that what Carroll is doing here doesn't make sense. Not that it doesn't give you the right answer, but just that he hasn't justified his approach.

There are actually quite a few threads on this on physics.stackexchange.com. Here is one example, https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...ation-of-the-geodesic-equations/486049#486049

There is also some discussion in some Riemannian Geometry books as to when you can do the above. If I have more time, I will try and dig up a reference tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #3
hawkdron496 said:
What I am unclear on is the step in 3.47. I understand that the four velocity is normalized to -1 for timelike paths, but if the value of f is fixed, how can we vary it at all?
I don't much care for that sleight of hand either. It's not necessary. Crunching through with either EL equation is not excessively difficult (and one may even learn a little bit about the properties of homogeneous functions). Every serious student of GR should do it. :oldsmile:

In the 1st case (with ##\sqrt{-f}\,##), one finds that the 4 EL eqns are not all independent and one cannot write those EL eqns in the form ##\,\ddot x^\mu = \dots\,##.

In the 2nd case (with ##f##), one finds EL eqns which, when contracted with ##\dot x^\mu##, give an auxiliary eqn of the form ##df/ds = 0##, i.e., ##f = const##, and one can choose the constant depending on whether we're working with timelike, lightlike or spacelike paths.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman and vanhees71
  • #4
I disagree that there is sleight of hand here. You are well within your right to reparametrise the world line such that ##f## becomes a constant of motion and when you do the variation of the expression eith the square root reduces to the same EL equation as that without.

hawkdron496 said:
Summary: Trying to understand a trick Carroll uses to derive the geodesic equation by extremizing proper time

What I am unclear on is the step in 3.47. I understand that the four velocity is normalized to -1 for timelike paths, but if the value of f is fixed, how can we vary it at all?
It is not about not varying it. It is about choosing a reparametrization of the curve such that it is constant when solving the equations of motion. It is easy to show that the proper time is invariant under such reparametrizations.

strangerep said:
one cannot write those EL eqns in the form x¨μ=….
Yes you can. The difference to the geodesic equations is that you will obtain an additional term proportional to ##\dot x^\mu## and involving the derivative of ##\ln (-f)##.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #5
Orodruin said:
Yes you can. The difference to the geodesic equations is that you will obtain an additional term proportional to ##\dot x^\mu## and involving the derivative of ##\ln (-f)##.
The logic I relied on is as follows. Let me first change the notation slightly. Denote ##F = \sqrt{-f}\,,## and ##u^\mu := \dot x^\mu \equiv d x^\mu/ds##. Then the EL eqn in the 1st case is $$0 ~=~ E_\mu[F] ~:=~
\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial u^\mu \partial u^\nu}\, \dot u^\nu
+ \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x^\nu \partial u^\mu}\, u^\nu
- \frac{\partial F}{\partial x^\mu} ~~~~ (1)$$
The 1-homogeneity of ##F## wrt ##u^\mu## (indirectly wrt ##s##) implies that $$u^\mu E_\mu[F] ~=~ 0 ~~~~ (2)$$ identically. Hence the 4 eqns in (1) are not independent. Moreover, by homogeneity, $$u^\mu \; \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial u^\mu \partial u^\nu} ~=~ 0 ~, ~~~~ (3)$$ which means that
$$rank\left( \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial u^\mu \partial u^\nu}\right) ~<~ 4 ~,$$ so the matrix of 2nd order derivatives of ##F## occurring in (1) is non-invertible in general.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #6
strangerep said:
The logic I relied on is as follows. Let me first change the notation slightly. Denote ##F = \sqrt{-f}\,,## and ##u^\mu := \dot x^\mu \equiv d x^\mu/ds##. Then the EL eqn in the 1st case is $$0 ~=~ E_\mu[F] ~:=~
\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial u^\mu \partial u^\nu}\, \dot u^\nu
+ \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x^\nu \partial u^\mu}\, u^\nu
- \frac{\partial F}{\partial x^\mu} ~~~~ (1)$$
The 1-homogeneity of ##F## wrt ##u^\mu## (indirectly wrt ##s##) implies that $$u^\mu E_\mu[F] ~=~ 0 ~~~~ (2)$$ identically. Hence the 4 eqns in (1) are not independent. Moreover, by homogeneity, $$u^\mu \; \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial u^\mu \partial u^\nu} ~=~ 0 ~, ~~~~ (3)$$ which means that
$$rank\left( \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial u^\mu \partial u^\nu}\right) ~<~ 4 ~,$$ so the matrix of 2nd order derivatives of ##F## occurring in (1) is non-invertible in general.
The underlying reason of course being that the functional is independent under reparametrisations of the world line such that there is a flat direction. Imposing an affine parametrisation with a normalised tangent fixes this.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #7
Orodruin said:
I disagree that there is sleight of hand here. You are well within your right to reparametrise the world line such that ##f## becomes a constant of motion and when you do the variation of the expression eith the square root reduces to the same EL equation as that without.
The square root action is reparametrization invariant. The energy functional is not.

See, https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...e-squared-lagrangian-equivalent/149204#149204
 
  • #9
jbergman said:
The square root action is reparametrization invariant. The energy functional is not.

See, https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...e-squared-lagrangian-equivalent/149204#149204
The square-root action is indeed reparametrization invariant by construction, and this is the reason, why it describes only 3 independent degrees of freedom and not 4 as it might look at the first glance. It's a case of "gauge symmetry", and this can be used to get to the "square form", i.e., you can partially fix the gauge by imposing a constraint.

From a geometrical point of view it's suggestive to use the constraint that the parameter is an affine parameter, i.e., to impose the constraint ##g_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}^{\nu}=\text{const}##. This you can do using a Lagrange parameter, but it's easier to directly observe that the Lagrangian
$$L=\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}^{\nu}$$
automatically does the job. First it obeys the "affinity constraint" automatically. Since ##L## is not explicitly ##\lambda## determined (where ##\lambda## is the arbitrary parameter of the curves), you have
$$p_{\mu} \dot{x}^{\mu} -L=L=\text{const},$$
and it's easy to see that the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion coincide with the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for the square-root form in the case where you choose an affine parameter, fulfilling the constraint condition. That's why the square form and the square-root form lead to the same equations of motion, i.e., the geodesics in spacetime you are looking for.

The physical cases are of course time-like geodesics for the description of massive point particles moving through a given gravitational field or the light-like geodesics for the calculation of "light rays" (in the literature usually called "photons", which I find a bit misleading, but that's maybe sementics) in a given gravitational field.
 
  • Like
Likes Orodruin
  • #10
Orodruin said:
This is besides the point. The world lines are the same.
Well, the real point is that Carroll doesn't justify why one can do this which is bad pedagogy. No one is disputing the second point but a valid argument should be given like in @vanhees71 notes on special relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #11
hawkdron496 said:
Summary: Trying to understand a trick Carroll uses to derive the geodesic equation by extremizing proper time

On pages 106-107 of Spacetime & Geometry, Carroll derives the geodesic equation by extremizing the proper time functional. He writes:
View attachment 313663
What I am unclear on is the step in 3.47. I understand that the four velocity is normalized to -1 for timelike paths, but if the value of f is fixed, how can we vary it at all?
The value of f is fixed at -1 on the geodesic path, which is the solution of the variational equations. It's not precisely constant and equal to -1 for paths near the geodesic path, but it's close to -1. One can imagine expanding the difference in f along a nearby path by some multivariable taylor series. What's important is that 3.48 is correct to the first order in ##\delta f##. It doesn't need to be correct to higher order. A first-order change in f will contribute only second order terms to the results of 3.48. It's not a biggie though - if you don't like this result, with enough effort you can proceed without using this trick.
 
  • Like
Likes Orodruin
  • #12
It's really about getting rid of the square root in the action. Extremizing the functional ##\int d\lambda \sqrt{f(\lambda)}## is equivalent to extremizing the functional ##\int d\lambda F(f(\lambda))##, where ##F(f)## is an arbitrary strictly increasing function. Choosing ##F(f)=f## gives the desired result, without fixing anything. However, the new functional is no longer invariant under reparametrisations ##\lambda\to\lambda'=h(\lambda)##. Hence we think of it as a functional with fixed ##\lambda=\tau##, but this should not be viewed as a fixing of ##f(\tau)##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #13
Demystifier said:
It's really about getting rid of the square root in the action. Extremizing the functional ##\int d\lambda \sqrt{f(\lambda)}## is equivalent to extremizing the functional ##\int d\lambda F(f(\lambda))##, where ##F(f)## is an arbitrary strictly increasing function.
Can you provide a reference or state why the above is true?
 
  • #14
jbergman said:
Can you provide a reference or state why the above is true?
Consider the functional
$$A=\int d\lambda \, F(f(\lambda))$$
where ##F(f)## is an arbitrary function obeying
$$\frac{\partial F(f)}{\partial f}>0. \;\;\;\;\; (1)$$
Since
$$\delta \int d\lambda \, F(f(\lambda))= \int d\lambda \,\delta F(f(\lambda))$$
the functional ##A## is extremized when
$$\delta F(f(\lambda))=0.$$
But
$$\delta F(f(\lambda))=\frac{\partial F(f)}{\partial f}\delta f(\lambda)$$
so (1) implies that the functional ##A## is extremized when
$$\delta f(\lambda)=0.$$
Thus, the extremization of ##A## does not depend on the choice of ##F##, provided that it obeys (1).
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and vanhees71

FAQ: Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles

What is Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles?

Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles is a mathematical equation that describes the path of a freely moving particle in curved spacetime. It is derived from the variational principle in general relativity.

Who developed Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles?

This equation was developed by Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, in his book "Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity."

What is the significance of Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles?

Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles is significant because it is a fundamental equation in general relativity, which is a theory of gravity that has been extremely successful in explaining the behavior of the universe on a large scale.

How is Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles used in scientific research?

This equation is used in various areas of research, including cosmology, astrophysics, and gravitational physics. It is also used in the development of new theories and models of the universe.

Can Carroll GR: Geodesic Eq from Var Principles be applied to other fields of science?

Yes, this equation has applications in other fields such as quantum mechanics, where it is used to study the behavior of particles in curved spacetime. It is also used in the study of black holes and other extreme objects in the universe.

Similar threads

Back
Top