The action for a string in this background $$G_{IJ}\tag{1}$$ can be written as the Nambu-Goto action

$$S_{NG}=\int d\sigma^1d\sigma^2\sqrt{g}\quad\quad\Rightarrow\quad\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{g}\tag{2}$$

where the induced two-dimensional metric is


This action represents the worldsheet area of the string, a two dimensional Riemannian manifold. This area is minimal if the Euler-Lagrange equations are satisfied but also if an equivalent equation is satisfied: the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, which have this form (see footnote at page 13 in Drukker)

$$G^{IJ}\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta X^I}\right)\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta X^J}\right)=G_{MN}\partial_1X^{M}\partial_1X^{N}\tag{4}$$

(in this form), where $$\partial_a=\frac{\partial}{\partial\sigma^a}\,,\quad\sigma=1,2.\tag{5}$$

I know that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is

$$\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}+H\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial x},x\right)=0.\tag{6}$$

How this expressions translates into the previous one?


Let me show you what I have. From (2) and the expression of the determinant


$$ P_I^a=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\partial_aX^I}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\varepsilon^{ab}\varepsilon^{cd}\partial_cX^JG_{IJ}g_{bd}\tag{8}$$




why is not zero?


Let us start with an equivalent action, Polyakov

$$S_P=\frac{1}{2}\int d^2\sigma\sqrt{-h}h^{ab}\partial_aX^I\partial_bX^JG_{IJ}.\tag{10}$$

The momentum is


Let us choose

$$h_{ab}=\begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\,\quad\quad\Rightarrow\sqrt{-h}=1.\tag{12}$$

The Hamiltonian is then,

$$\mathcal{H}_P=\frac{1}{2}\int d^2\sigma h_{ab}P^a_IP^b_JG^{IJ}.\tag{13}$$

Due to reparametrization invariance



$$G^{IJ}P_I^\sigma P_J^\sigma=\partial_\tau X^I\partial_\tau X^JG_{IJ}.\tag{15}$$

Is this correct?


1 Answer 1

  1. Since we assume that the target-space (TS) metric $G_{IJ}$ does not depend explicitly on the world-sheet (WS) coordinates $(\tau,\sigma)$, the relevant Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) equation is the time-independent formulation $$H(x, \frac{\partial W}{\partial x})~=~E\tag{A}$$ in terms of Hamilton's characteristic function $W$ rather than Hamilton's principal function $S$. Because of WS reparametrization invariance, the rhs. $E=0$ of the HJ equation (A) vanishes, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.

  2. In fact due to WS reparametrization invariance, the Legendre transformation of the Nambu-Goto (NG) action is singular. We encounter 2 primary constraints $$ \frac{1}{2T_0}P^2\mp \frac{T_0}{2}(X^{\prime})^2~=~0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad P\cdot X^{\prime} ~=~0, \tag{B}$$ cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. [Here the $\mp$ sign corresponds to Euclidean (Minkowskian) TS signature, respectively. Note that the TS metric induces a WS metric of the same$^1$ signature. The constraints (B) can alternatively be deduced from the equivalent Polyakov action, cf. my Phys.SE answer here and links therein.] The HJ theory is usually not developed systematically for constrained systems, but we can view $$ \frac{1}{2T_0}\left(\frac{\delta W}{\delta X}\right)^2\mp\frac{T_0}{2}(X^{\prime})^2~=~0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \frac{\delta W}{\delta X}\cdot X^{\prime} ~=~0 \tag{C}$$ as the appropriate analog of the HJ equation/eikonal equation. The first equality in eq. (C) corresponds to OP's eq. (4). In Ref. 1 the boundary of the WS is a Wilson-loop parametrized by $\tau$.

  3. Concerning OP's Hamiltonian density (9): Note that OP's $a$-index should by definition only be a temporal WS index, not a spatial WS index. Then the Hamiltonian density (9) indeed vanishes. In particular one does not sum over the $a$-index here. In eq. (11) OP is introducing polymomenta a la De Donder & Weyl. There is a similar issue with OP's eq. (13).


  1. N. Drukker, D.J. Gross & H. Ooguri, Wilson Loops and Minimal Surfaces, arXiv:hep-th/9904191.


$^1$ Eq. (12) is inconsistent with OP's Riemannian TS signature.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. But I think the result I was trying to get is more general than the expression you get in (C). I added a reference 'cause it seems thiis result is actually well-known for Riemannian metrics. I was trying to derive it from $P_I^a\partial_aX^I=\mathcal{L}$ which is the same as $\mathcal{H}=0$. $\endgroup$ Jun 10, 2019 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ thanks again. Why do the index "a" should be temporal? couldnt it be spatial? I mean, if the idea is to vanish the Hamiltonian, I could choose also the other, right? What does mean choosing only one of them? Actually, in that paper, authors choose the spatial WS coodinate. Thus $$\mathcal{H}=P^\sigma\cdot{Y}'-\mathcal{L}$$. $\endgroup$ Jun 13, 2019 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ Also, due to reparametrization invariance, in general, it means that eq.(4) in my question is actually the vanishing Hamiltonian, right? $\endgroup$ Jun 13, 2019 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jun 14, 2019 at 7:33

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.