The geodesic equation can be derived using the action $$S_0 ~=~ \int d\tau \sqrt{-\dot{x}_\mu\cdot \dot{x}^\mu}\tag{1}$$ (I am using the (-+++) convention and $\dot{x} = \frac{dx}{d\tau}$). To simplify calculations one then chooses an explicit parametrization namely the arc length $\tau$ i.e. $$\dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu = -1.\tag{2}$$ From my point of view this means that I minimize the action with the constraint: $$\dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu + 1 = 0.\tag{3}$$ So the resulting equation should be the same if I use the following action instead $$S = \int d\tau \sqrt{-\dot{x}_\mu\cdot \dot{x}^\mu} + \lambda(\dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu + 1)\tag{4}$$ where $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier.

Let's find the eom in Minkowski space: $$0 = \dot{p}_\mu = \frac{d}{d\tau}\left(\frac{-\dot{x}_\mu}{\sqrt{-\dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu}} + 2\lambda\dot{x}_\mu\right)\tag{5}$$ $$\dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu + 1 = 0.\tag{6}$$

The square root in the first equation equals 1. So $$p_\mu = (2\lambda - 1)\dot{x}_\mu.\tag{7}$$ From the second equation I find $$\ddot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu = 0.$$ Using this $$\frac{d}{d\tau} \dot{x}^\mu p_\mu = \ddot{x}^\mu p_\mu + \dot{x}^\mu \dot{p}_\mu = 0.\tag{8}$$ So $$\mathrm{const.} = \dot{x}^\mu p_\mu = 1-2\lambda \Rightarrow \dot{\lambda} = 0\tag{9}$$ Putting all together yields: $$ \dot{p}_\mu = (2\lambda - 1) \ddot{x}_\mu = 0.\tag{10}$$

In the case $\lambda \neq \frac{1}{2}$ this simply gives the old eom $\ddot{x} = 0$. However in the case $\lambda = \frac{1}{2}$ there is no restriction to $\ddot{x}$.

I don't understand where this case $\lambda = \frac{1}{2}$ comes from. How do I deal with it? Can I simply neglect it? Or have I forgotten something?

  1. First of all, we should stress that what OP calls $\tau$ is not$^{\dagger}$ proper time off-shell but just some world-line (WL) parameterization. However, the constraint $$\dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu ~\approx ~-1\tag{A}$$ will imply that the WL parameter $\tau$ is the proper time on-shell.

  2. Since the EOM depends on the first derivative $\frac{d\lambda}{d\tau}$ of the Lagrange multiplier, we should specify a single condition, e.g. an inertial condition (IC) for $\lambda$. If we choose the IC different from $1/2$, we avoid the problem when $\lambda$ is $1/2$.

  3. The nature of the $\lambda=1/2$ pathology is a degeneracy of the constraint force/missing rank issue. To see this more clearly note that we can get an equivalent action $$ \tilde{S} ~=~ \int_{\tau_i}^{\tau_f}\!\mathrm{d}\tau \left(\sqrt{1} + \lambda(\dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu + 1)\right) \tag{B}$$ by inserting the constraint (A) into the first term in OP's action (4). If we repeat OP's calculation for the equivalent action $\tilde{S}$ we will see that the trouble has shifted to $\lambda=0$. Clearly, the case $\lambda=0$ corresponds to a degenerate case where the stationary action principle (B) is ill-defined.


$^{\dagger}$ If the WL parameter $\tau$ is proper time off-shell as well, it would mean that OP's action (4) is just $S=\tau_f-\tau_i$, which is fixed by boundary conditions (BC). In other words, the action would not depend on the WL, i.e. the variational problem would be ill-defined.

  • $\begingroup$ 2. ok that's a good point. But I guess this problem will also occur in other Lagrangians. Is there a way to find a non-critical value of $\lambda$ in general? 3. Is there any way to fix this degeneracy? Like adding another constraint? $\endgroup$ – toaster Oct 15 '18 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ 2. No, it will depend on the variational problem. 3. Yes. See point 2. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 16 '18 at 1:55
  • $\begingroup$ I actually don't see where this degeneracy comes from. This does not happen when using Lagrange multipliers to minimize a function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ with constraints. Why does it happen here? At what prevents me from choosing $\lambda = \frac{1}{2}$? $\endgroup$ – toaster Oct 16 '18 at 11:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A similar phenomenon appears if we try to find stationary points for a function of the form $$f(g(x))+\lambda g(x),\qquad x\in \mathbb{R}^n. $$ $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 16 '18 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ Would it be possible to solve this by demanding that the Euler Lagrange equations should hold for every $\lambda$? $\endgroup$ – toaster Oct 18 '18 at 13:38

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.