I have asked this on math stack exchange, due to its mostly mathemtical content, but aside from one upvote and minimal views it has not garnered any attention, so I am trying here as well. This isn't anything important really, but it has been stratching the back of my head while studying variational formalism in general relativity.

"Let $(M,\mathcal{S},g)$ be a smooth, $n$-dimensional manifold equipped with a Riemann metric. Let us denote the vector space of $(p,q)$-type tensor fields on $M$ as $\mathcal{T}_{q}^{p}(M)$.

Let $\Psi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathcal{T}_{q}^{p}(M),\varepsilon\mapsto\Psi(\varepsilon)$ be a smooth curve and let us use the notation where $\Psi$ denotes $\Psi(0)$.

Let $S:\mathcal{T}_{q}^{p}(M)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a functional, in such way, that $$S[\Psi]=\int_{M}\mathcal{L}(\Psi,\nabla\Psi)\sqrt{|\det(g)|}\mathrm{d}x^{1}\wedge...\wedge\mathrm{d}x^{n}.$$

In this case, we say $S$ is functionally derivable at $\Psi$, if there exists a $\frac{dS[\Psi]}{d\Psi}\in\mathcal{T}_{p}^{q}(M)$ tensor field, that $$\left.\frac{dS[\Psi(\varepsilon)]}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}=\int_M\frac{dS[\Psi]}{d\Psi}\bullet\left.\frac{d\Psi(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}\sqrt{|\det(g)|}\mathrm{d}x^{1}\wedge...\wedge\mathrm{d}x^{n},$$ where $\bullet$ denotes full contraction.

My questions are regarding technical details of this derivative. Physics books generally do not impose rigorous conditions on the space of tensor fields on which $S$ is defined.

What structures does this space need to possess for this to make sense? I assume Hausdorff-topology is a must, but does it need to be normed? If so, what norm do we use, that does not conflict with physics, or what norm makes sense in a physical context?

Wald mentions in a footnote, that in general, a tensor distribution needs exist, so that $$\left.\frac{dS[\Psi(\varepsilon)]}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}=\left\langle\frac{dS[\Psi]}{d\Psi},\left.\frac{d\Psi(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}\right\rangle.$$ Is there any conceivable situation within the bounds of physics, where this distribution is singular, ie. doesn't exist as an integral?"

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Crossposted from math.stackexchange.com/q/1079047/11127 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Dec 25 '14 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Danu Why do you think so? I originally did post this on math, but my primary question is regarding whether it is possible to conceive such action within physics, that the resulting distribution is non-regular. I'm sure, that from a mathematical point of view, that is quite possible, but from a physical point of view, this is a physics question, isn't it? $\endgroup$ – Bence Racskó Dec 25 '14 at 13:50

You need not only a topology on your tensor fields but also a smooth structure. Otherwise it would not make sense to say that $\Psi: (-\epsilon, + \epsilon) \to \mathcal{T}$ is a smooth family of curves. You can try to put a Banach manifold structure on $\mathcal{T}$ by endowing it with Sobolev norms or, more naturally but also more difficult, view it as a Fréchet manifold with the usual $C^\infty$-topology. See for example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9chet_space#Examples

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I've been away for a while. Thanks for the response, this probably answers my norm question, though I have yet to study this (which I lack the time to, right now). Do you have any tips on mysecond question, namely, if it is possible to find physically relevant systems where the functional derivative is singular? $\endgroup$ – Bence Racskó Jan 11 '15 at 19:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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