Search Results
Search type | Search syntax |
---|---|
Tags | [tag] |
Exact | "words here" |
Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
Views | views:250 |
Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
URL | url:"*.example.com" |
Saves | in:saves |
Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
Types |
is:question is:answer |
Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
For more details on advanced search visit our help page |
The action is the integral of the Lagrangian over time, or the integral of the Lagrangian Density over both time and space.
4
votes
5
answers
653
views
Is boundary well defined if variation of metric don't vanish on the boundary?
Suppose that you want to calculate the variation $\delta S$ of an action induced by some arbitrary variation $\delta g_{\mu \nu}$ of the spacetime metric :
\begin{equation}
S = \int_{\Omega} \mathscr{L …
2
votes
0
answers
202
views
Why can't we fix the metric and its derivatives at boundary, with the variational method?
In general relativity and for its Einstein-Hilbert action, we usually ask that the metric variations $\delta g_{\mu \nu}$ cancel on the boundary $\partial \, \Omega$ of some region $\Omega$ of the spacetime … EDIT 2 :
Under the action integral variation, is the perturbed field $\phi'(x) = \phi(x) + \delta \phi(x)$ "on-shell" or "off-shell" ? …
1
vote
0
answers
450
views
What is the physical interpretation of the action integral, without the stationary action pr...
I'm wondering about a similar (inverted) interpretation for the action (1) (this is my own interpretation):
Action $A$ is a measure of the mechanical information that you already have on the state … , but all of the answers are systematically refering to the extremal action principle (or stationary action principle), and they aren't answering the question about the action itself. …
2
votes
4
answers
2k
views
What are the boundary conditions associated to this lagrangian?
Suppose that $L(q^i, \dot{q}^i)$ is a standard and well behaved lagrangian associated to some Dirichlet boundary conditions : $q^i(t_1) = q_1^i$ and $q^i(t_2) = q_2^i$. Now I have this new lagrangian …
12
votes
0
answers
1k
views
Variation of the Einstein-Hilbert action in $D$ dimensions without the Gibbons-Hawking-York ...
Consider the standard Einstein-Hilbert action in $D \ne 2$ dimensions spacetimes :
\begin{equation}
S_{EH} = \frac{1}{2 \kappa} \int_{\Omega} R \; \sqrt{- g} \; d^D x,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is … Usually, this forces us to introduce the Gibbons-Hawking-York surface integral into the gravitational action to remove that variational issue. I don't like that. …
15
votes
1
answer
909
views
The cosmological constant as a Lagrange multiplier?
We could suppose that since $\mathcal{V}_4$ should be very large and the action $S$ "reasonable", then $\Lambda$ should be small. … Does it make sense to interpret $\Lambda$ as a Lagrange multiplier associated to a constrained 4-volume introduced into the action ? …
9
votes
1
answer
3k
views
Can we find the boundary conditions of fields from the stationary action principle?
application of the stationary action principle ? … Very important: Take note that I may be using the "Nature" Hamilton-Jacobi action and not the "observer" Euler-Lagrange action (I'm not sure yet), as defined in this paper :
https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2736 …