Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $X^\mu (t,\sigma ^1,\ldots ,\sigma ^p)$ be a $p$-brane in space-time and let $g$ be the metric on $X^\mu$ induced from the ambient space-time metric. Then, the Nambu-Goto action on $X^\mu$ is defined to be $$ S:=-T\int dt\, d\sigma \sqrt{-\det (g)}. $$ (We use the convention of space-time signature $(-,+,+,+)$.

Let us try to compute the Hamiltonian for this theory. The first step is to calculate the conjugate momenta: $$ P_\mu :=\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _tX^\mu)}, $$ where of course $L:=-T\sqrt{-\det (g)}$. It turns out that you are unable to invert this map to write $\partial _tX^\mu$ as a function of $X^\mu$, $P^\mu$, and $\partial _{\sigma ^i}X^\mu$, which means that the image of the Legendre transformation $(X^\mu ,\partial _{\sigma ^i}X^\mu ,\partial _tX^\mu )\mapsto \left( X^\mu ,\partial _{\sigma ^i}X^\mu ,\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _tX^\mu )}\right)$ is not surjective, but instead the image of this map is a proper sub-manifold (of course, in general the image of a manifold under a smooth map will not in general be a manifold, but in our particular case, that should not be a problem) of $T^pT^*M$, and so (locally anyways) will be specified by $N$ constraints $\phi _j(X,\partial _{\sigma ^i}X,P)=0$, where $N$ is the dimension of the kernel of the derivative of the Ledgendre transformation.

In the case of the Nambu-Goto Lagrangian, I have found that $N=1+p$. I found this by calculating the multiplicity of $0$ as an eigenvalue of $\frac{\partial ^2L}{\partial (\partial _tX^\mu )\partial (\partial _tX^\nu )}$. The question is: now that I know how many constraints there should be, how do I systematically find what those constraints actually are?

For what it's worth, I know that one constraint is $$ P^2+T^2\det (k)=0, $$ where $k$ (I have suppressed the time-dependence of $k(t)$ in the notation) is the metric on the space-like sub-manifold $X_t^\mu (\sigma ^1,\ldots ,\sigma ^p):=X^\mu (t,\sigma ^1,\ldots ,\sigma ^p)$ induced from the metric $g$ on $X^\mu$, and that the other $p$ constraints are $$ \partial _{\sigma ^i}X\cdot P=0 $$ for $1\leq i\leq p$. I even know how to verify that these are in fact constraints. What I don't know, however, is how to come up with these constraints without simply pulling them out of my ass.

Is there a systematic, yet computationally feasible way of determining what these $1+p$ constraints should be?

Furthermore, I have a hunch that each of these constraints arises from a corresponding re-parameterization invariance, so if that is indeed the case, it would be wonderful if someone could elucidate this connection for me. (Is there a re-parameterization invaraince-$\Rightarrow$-constraint theorem analogous to Noether's Theorem for symmetries and conserved quantities?)

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I managed to find a quasi-systematic way to do this. The idea that allowed me to do this was inspired by Noether's Theorem.

Re-parameterization invariance is a symmetry of the system, a symmetry much stronger than an ordinary global symmetry. Similarly, however, a constraint is also a conserved quantity, but it is something much stronger than that. Knowing that there was some relation between the two, I suspected there might be a way to derive constraints given re-parameterization invariance in a similar way that Noether's Theorem allows you to derive conserved quantities from a known symmetry. I thus managed to hack together a modification of the'proof' of Noether's Theorem that allowed me to calculate the constraints. Unfortunately, however, putting the constraints entirely in terms of $X$, $\partial _{\sigma ^i}X$, and $P$ was not completely systematic, but it was still much more straightforward than simply coming up with the constraints out of thin air. Anyways, here's what I did. For simplicity, I only addressed the case of the string ($p=1$).

For a mapping of the string $X\mapsto X'$ which depends on a parameter $\varepsilon$, I abbreviate $\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\big| _{\varepsilon =0}$ by $\delta$. This notation is common amongst physicists, but they often do mention exaclty what they mean by it. Under such a transformation of the string alone, I have \begin{align*} \delta L & =\frac{\partial L}{\partial X}\cdot \delta X+\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _tX)}\cdot \delta (\partial _tX)+\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _\sigma X)}\cdot \delta (\partial _\sigma X) \\ & =\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _tX)}\right] \cdot \delta X+\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _tX)}\cdot \delta (\partial _tX)+\frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma}\left[ \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _\sigma X)}\right] \cdot \delta X \\ & +\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _\sigma X)}\cdot \delta (\partial _\sigma X) \\ & =\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _tX)}\cdot \delta X\right] +\frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma}\left[ \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _\sigma X)}\cdot \delta X\right] . \end{align*} Note that I have assumed that the derivatives commute with the transformation (i.e. $\delta (\partial _tX)=\partial _t(\delta X)$ and $\delta (\partial _\sigma X)=\partial _\sigma (\delta X)$). In the case of our re-parametrization invariance, this turns out to be the case, though I did have to check this and I don't see any reason why this should be true in general (though do point it out if you are aware of a reason)).

Assuming that $\delta L$ is of the form $\delta L=\partial _tf+\partial _\sigma g$, we can re-arrange this equation to obtain $$ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _tX)}\cdot \delta X-f\right]=\frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma}\left[ g-\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial _\sigma X)}\cdot \delta X\right] . $$ Thus, under the assumption that the appropriate functions vanish at infinity, the integral over $\sigma$ of the quantity in the time derivative will be conserved. We suspect this might be a constraint. This is enough motivation to write down that quantity to see if it is in fact a constraint (note that the above derivation is only supposed to be motivation to check, not an actual proof).

In the case of time re-parametrization $X(t)\mapsto X(t+\varepsilon \xi )$, $\delta X=\xi \dot{X}$ and $\delta L=\partial _t(\xi L)$ (the first you can see right away, the second I had to actually sit down and calculate). Thus, we suspect that $$ \xi \dot{X}\cdot P-\xi L=\text{const} $$ might be a constraint. In fact, if you calculate $P$ and plug it in, we indeed see that this expression vanishes identically. So indeed it is true that $$ \partial _tX\cdot P=-L. $$ If you do the same thing with $\sigma$ re-parameterization, you find $$ \partial _\sigma X\cdot P=0. $$ Note that in this case $\delta L$ is a $\sigma$ derivative, as opposed to a time derivative as before, and so doesn't show up. Fantastic! The only thing that remains to be down is to eliminate the pesky $\dot{X}$. To do this, we have to actually compute $P$.

It turns out that $$ P_\mu =\frac{T^2}{L}\left( (\partial _tX\cdot \partial _\sigma X)\partial _\sigma X_\mu-(\partial _\sigma X)^2\partial _tX_\mu \right) . $$ The idea is that we can use the time re-parameterization constraint to eliminate $\partial _tX$ from the expression for $P$ by contracting $P$ with itself: $$ P^2=\frac{T^2}{L}\left( (\partial _tX\cdot \partial _\sigma X)\partial _\sigma X\cdot P-(\partial _\sigma X)^2\partial _tX\cdot P\right) =-T^2(\partial _\sigma X)^2. $$

Et voila! There be the sought after constraints!

And now I move on with my life . . .

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.