3
$\begingroup$

I have naive question about Einstein action for field-free case: $$ S = -\frac{1}{16 \pi G}\int \sqrt{-g} d^{4}x g^{\mu \nu}R_{\mu \nu}. $$ It contains the second derivatives of metric. When we want to get the Einstein equation (which doesn't contain the third derivatives), we must use variational principle. The variation of "problematic" factor $R_{\mu \nu}$ (which contains the second derivatives) is equal to $$ \delta R_{\mu \nu} = D_{\gamma}(\delta \Gamma^{\gamma}_{\mu \nu}) - D_{\nu}(\delta \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \lambda}). $$ So the corresponding variation of action may be rewritten in a form $$ \delta_{R_{\mu \nu}} S = -\frac{1}{16 \pi G}\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}\partial_{\lambda}(g^{\mu \nu}\delta \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} - g^{\mu \lambda}\delta \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mu \sigma}). \qquad (1) $$ Then one likes to say that it is equal to zero. But why it must be equal to zero? It isn't obvious to me. After using the divergence theorem $(1)$ becomes $$ \delta_{R_{\mu \nu}} S = -\frac{1}{16 \pi G}\int dS_{\lambda} \sqrt{-g}(g^{\mu \nu}\delta \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} - g^{\mu \lambda}\delta \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mu \sigma}). $$ Why it must be equal to zero? It is metric, not physical field, even if Christoffel symbols refer to the gravitational field, so I don't understand why it must be equal to zero at infinity.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

It seems that OP is pondering the following.

What happens in a field theory [in OP's case: GR] if spacetime $M$ has a non-empty boundary $\partial M\neq \emptyset$, and we don't impose pertinent (e.g. Dirichlet) boundary conditions (BC) on the fields $\phi^{\alpha}(x)$ [in OP's case: the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$]?

I) Firstly, it should stressed that when people say that the infinitesimal variation $\delta S_0$ of the action $S_0[\phi]$ [in OP's case: the Einstein-Hilbert action $S_{EH}$] vanishes on-shell, i.e. when the Euler-Lagrange equations [in OP'case: Einstein's field equations] are satisfied, it is implicitly assumed that the infinitesimal variations $\delta\phi^{\alpha}(x)$ of the fields $\phi^{\alpha}(x)$ only take place in the interior/bulk of spacetime $M$ away from the boundary $\partial M$. In such cases, the infinitesimal variation $\delta S_0$ clearly vanishes on-shell, as part of the stationary action principle, aka. Hamilton's principle.

II) Secondly, if the sole purpose of the infinitesimal variation $\delta\phi^{\alpha}(x)$ is just to locally (re)derive the equations of motion (=the Euler-Lagrange equations) in an interior/bulk point $x_0$ of spacetime $M$, it is enough to choose localized variations $\delta\phi^{\alpha}(x)$ with support in sufficiently small compact neighborhoods around this point $x_0$. In particular, one may assume that $\delta\phi^{\alpha}(x)$ and all its (higher) derivatives vanish at the boundary $\partial M$ for such variations, and still derive the equations of motion.

III) Thirdly, if we do not impose adequate BC, then the global notion of a functional derivative

$$ \tag{1} \frac{\delta S_0}{\delta\phi^{\alpha}(x)}$$

may not exists, i.e. there may not exists a globally defined function $^1$ $$\tag{2} f_{\alpha}(x) ~=~f_{\alpha}(\phi(x), \partial \phi(x), \partial^2 \phi(x),\ldots ;x)$$

such that

$$ \tag{3} \delta S_0 ~=~\int_M \! d^{n}x ~f_{\alpha}(x)~\delta\phi^{\alpha}(x)$$

for all allowed infinitesimal variations $\delta\phi^{\alpha}(x)$. In plain English, the problem is that we cannot use the usual integration by part argument when deriving the Euler-Lagrange expression since we have not imposed sufficient BC to ensure that boundary terms vanish. Then one must typically amend the bulk action $S_0$ with a boundary action $S_1$ [in OP's case: The Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary action $^2$ $S_{GHY}$], which only lives on the boundary $\partial M$. The total action then reads $S_0+S_1$.

--

$^1$ If the function (2) happens to exist, it is unique, and we will call it the functional derivative of $S_0$, and denote it by the symbol (1).

$^2$ See also these Phys.SE posts for more on the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Correction to the answer (v2): Integration by part should be Integration by parts. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 2 '14 at 21:02

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.