I Variation of matter action under diffeomorphism (Carroll)

chartery
Messages
42
Reaction score
5
Queries on Carroll's derivation of matter action ## S_M ## under a diffeomorphism:

(Book B.23+4 Notes 5.35+6)

##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{\delta S_{M}} {\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \left( 2 \nabla _{(\mu}V_{\nu)} \right) =\left( 2 \right) \frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}\nabla _{\mu}V_{\nu}##

He explains dropping the symmetrisation by symmetry of the fraction, but would the double contraction not do so irrespective of metric symmetry?Also (Book B.25 Notes 5.37)

##0 = \int d^{n}x \frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}\nabla _{\mu}V_{\nu} = -\int d^{n}x \sqrt{-g} V_{\nu}\nabla _{\mu}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \right)##

Could someone explain the steps to get right hand side from left (of second equality)?

Please, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the first, ##A^{\mu \nu} B_{(\mu \nu )} = \frac{1}{2} A^{\mu \nu} (B_{\mu \nu} + B_{\nu \mu}) = \frac{1}{2}(A^{\mu \nu} + A^{\nu \mu}) B_{\mu \nu} = A^{(\mu \nu)} B_{\mu \nu}##
And if ##A^{\mu \nu}## is symmetric then ##A^{(\mu \nu)} = A^{\mu \nu}##.

Your second equality is integration by parts (note ##\nabla \sqrt{-g} = 0##).
 
ergospherical said:
For the first, ##A^{\mu \nu} B_{(\mu \nu )} = \frac{1}{2} A^{\mu \nu} (B_{\mu \nu} + B_{\nu \mu}) = \frac{1}{2}(A^{\mu \nu} + A^{\nu \mu}) B_{\mu \nu} = A^{(\mu \nu)} B_{\mu \nu}##
And if ##A^{\mu \nu}## is symmetric then ##A^{(\mu \nu)} = A^{\mu \nu}##.
@ergospherical, thanks very much.

I wasn't doubting that logic, just wondering whether my application of index rules was shaky. It seemed to me that the combination of symmetry ## \nabla _{(\mu}V_{\nu)} ## with the dual contraction meant there was no need to rely on symmetry of the ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## term?
Or even, if ##A^{(\mu \nu)} = A^{\mu \nu}##, why not ## \nabla _{(\mu}V_{\nu)} = \nabla _{\mu}V_{\nu}## ?

EDIT: Oops, the last sentence highlighted my confusion (between notation and actual symmetry), so please ignore above queries and instead:

Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## effectively contravariant in the two indices, to conform to the summation convention? Is it as straightforward as ##\left( \delta g_{\mu\nu} \right)^{-1} = \delta g^{\mu\nu}## ?
ergospherical said:
Your second equality is integration by parts (note ##\nabla \sqrt{-g} = 0##).
For the absent antiderivative:

Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## a fraction with ##\delta S_{M} =0##,
or is it a single symbol, zeroed with boundary conditions,
or some other reason ? :oldsmile:
 
Last edited:
chartery said:
Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## effectively contravariant in the two indices, to conform to the summation convention? Is it as straightforward as ##\left( \delta g_{\mu\nu} \right)^{-1} = \delta g^{\mu\nu}## ?
Downstairs indices in the denominator count as upstairs indices, yes.

For the second sentence you have to be careful. Remember ##\delta^{\mu}_{\nu} = g^{\mu \rho} g_{\rho \nu}##, and taking the variation ##0 = g^{\mu \rho} \delta g_{\rho \nu} + \delta g^{\mu \rho} g_{\rho \nu}## and hence ##\delta g^{\mu \nu} = -g^{\mu \rho} g^{\nu \sigma} \delta g_{\rho \sigma}##.

chartery said:
For the absent antiderivative:

Is ##\frac{\delta S_{M}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}## a fraction with ##\delta S_{M} =0##,
or is it a single symbol, zeroed with boundary conditions,
or some other reason ? :oldsmile:
You can turn it into
\begin{align*}
\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \nabla_{\mu} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_M}{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} V_{\nu} \right)
\end{align*}
And for any vector ##X^{\mu}## which vanishes sufficiently fast towards infinity then
\begin{align*}
\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \nabla_{\mu} X^{\mu} = \int d^4 x \partial_{\mu} (\sqrt{-g} X^{\mu}) = \int_{\partial} dS_{\mu} X^{\mu} \sqrt{-g} = 0
\end{align*}
by Stokes, where we used the divergence formula ##{X^{\mu}}_{;\mu} = (-g)^{-1/2} ((-g)^{1/2} X^{\mu})_{,\mu}## in the first equality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes chartery and PeroK
@ergospherical, again many thanks.

Self-taught, I realise I don't have enough knowledge of variational (and tensor) manipulations, but there does seem to be a lot of casually presupposed ability packed suddenly into that one bald equality in his notes !
 
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...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
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