3
$\begingroup$

I'm wondering if anyone could help me with the following questions.

Let $M$ be the Minkowski spacetime, given $f\in C^{\infty}(M) ; f(m)=x^{0}(m)$, with $\{x^{\mu}\}$ being a global Cartesian coordinates system, given the 3-dimensional submanifold $M\supset F_{t}=f^{-1}(t)$ relative to a regular value $t\in\mathbb{R}$ of $f$, and given the Lagrangian: $$ \mathcal{L}\in C^{\infty}(TM) $$ $$ \mathcal{L}(x^{\mu},\dot{x}^{\mu})=-\sqrt{\eta_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^{\nu}} $$ where $\eta$ is the Minkowski metric and $\{x^{\mu}\}$ a global Cartesian coordinates system; what is the coordinates espression of the Lagrangian on $F_{t}$: $$ (T\iota_{t})^{*}\mathcal{L}\in C^{\infty}(F_{t}) $$

I "know" from other "sources" that I should find: $$ (T\iota_{t})^{*}\mathcal{L}(x^{i},\dot{x}^{i})=\mathcal{L}\circ T\iota_{t}(x^{i},\dot{x}^{i})=-\sqrt{1 - \delta_{ij}\dot{x}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}} $$ Is it totally wrong?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The final result is explicitly the same thing you wrote before - as an assumption - assuming that $x^0=t$ which it probably is, if $x^{1,2,3}=x^i$ is the index for the spatial coordinates, and if the dot refers to derivatives with respect to time. You just realize that $\partial x^0/\partial t = 1$ and similar trivialities. If the Lagrangian is a function defined on the whole 4D spacetime, it's also defined on 3D submanifolds of it, why there should be any difference here? What's the problem here? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2013 at 17:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LubošMotl Actually the Lagrangian is defined on the tangent bundle $TM$ of the spacetime and not on the spacetime $M$, moreover $\{x^{\mu},\dot{x}^{\mu}\}$ and $\{x^{i},\dot{x}^{i}\}$ are coordinates on, respectively, $TM$ and $TF_{t}$, while $t\in \mathbb{R}$ is a generic number. In this context I'm not able to explicitly write the coordinates expression of $T\iota_{t}$ that should lead me to the expression $-\sqrt{1 - \delta_{ij}\dot{x}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}}$. $\endgroup$
    – fmc2
    Commented Jul 13, 2013 at 18:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's exactly what Lubos said. Penetrate through the endless differential geometry verbosity (which is completely overblown in power when applied to Minkowski space), and you'll see the answer. Once you do this, you can go back and differential geometry-ify it if you want. The real key is that your volume elements and metrics are related by simple embedding relations. Work these out, and you have the answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 12, 2013 at 23:03

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

Your suspicions are correct: It is wrong! At least as it is written presently.

Let us start form the embedding of manifold $$\imath_t : F_t \ni p \mapsto p \in M\:.$$ It induces and embedding of corresponding tangent bundles: $$T\imath_t : TF_t \ni (p,v) \mapsto (p, d\imath_t (v)) \in TM$$ The latter can only preserve the vectors tangent to $F_t$ seen as embedded submanifold in $M$. It cannot say anything about components non-tangent to $F_t \subset M$.

When one fixes a coordinate system $x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3$ adapted to $F_t$, i.e $F_t$ coincides with the set of points with $x^0=0$ (your $x^0$ is my $t+x^0$), then he/she also fixes a similar coordinate system referring to $TF_t$ and $TM$, passing in the naturally associated charts with coordinates, respectively, $x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3,\dot{x}^0,\dot{x}^1,\dot{x}^2,\dot{x}^3$ in $TM$ and $x^1,x^2,x^3,\dot{x}^1,\dot{x}^2,\dot{x}^3$ in $TF_t$.

With our choice of coordinates the bases turn out to be identical and thus $T\imath_t$ preserves the $3$ components $\dot{x}^i$. In other words, as said above, any vector transported from $F_t$ to $M$ keeps remaining tangent to $F_t$ seen as submanifold of $M$:

$$T\imath_t : TF_t \ni (x^1,x^2,x^3,\dot{x}^1,\dot{x}^2,\dot{x}^3) \mapsto (0, x^1,x^2,x^3,0,\dot{x}^1,\dot{x}^2,\dot{x}^3) \in TM$$

Therefore $$ (T\iota_{t})^{*}\mathcal{L}(x^{i},\dot{x}^{i})=\mathcal{L}\circ T\iota_{t}(x^{i},\dot{x}^{i})=-\sqrt{0 - \delta_{ij}\dot{x}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}} $$

which makes sense if you are allowed to consider complex values. Otherwise you should define the Lagrangian including an absolute value (the point is that as it stands the initial, unrestricted, $\mathcal{L}$ is not defined on $TM$, but only on the subset of causal elements $(p,v) \in T_pM$ with $v$ causal).

If you want to obtain the expression $\sqrt{1 - \delta_{ij}\dot{x}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}}$, you should fix the temporal component of vectors making use of a jet bundle over $x^0$ for instance... (However to be completely honest, all that seems to my like killing a fly with a gun.)

ADDENDUM: As I wrote in a comment now erased, every differentiable coordinate function like $x^0$ in a coordinate patch on a manifold is such that all their values are always regular. (In fact $dx^0|_p$ has to be an element of a basis $T_p^*M$ and thus it cannot vanish.) So it is not necessary to assume it separately, as you did in your question.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank You, I really appreciate your explanation. The only thing I do not understand is the use of a Jet bundle over $x^{0}$ in order to fix the temporal component, but I have to admit to be unfamiliar with jet bundles, and thus I think a little study would clarify me everything. $\endgroup$
    – fmc2
    Commented Apr 26, 2014 at 12:40
0
$\begingroup$

According to the regular value theorem we can find a chart on $M$ such that the immersion $\iota_t: F_t \rightarrow M$ takes the form $\iota_t (x^i) = (x^0_t, x^i)$. Note that $x^0$ is a fixed constant and only depend on the value of $t$. Thus, differentiation with respect to the first variable is the identity on $TM$ (and the wrt other coordinates results in $\dot x^i$) from which the wanted equation follows.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ can you, please, be more specific and show me the explicit calculation involved when you say "Thus, differentiation with respect to the first variable is the identity on $TM$ (and the wrt other coordinates results in $\dot{x}^{i}$) from which the wanted equation follows." I'm asking because I suppose that the differentiation for finding $T\iota_{t}$ should be done w.r.t. the $x^{i}$ on $F_{t}$ and therefore $\frac{\partial x^{0}_{t}}{\partial x^{i}}=0$. $\endgroup$
    – fmc2
    Commented Jul 16, 2013 at 8:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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