Skip to main content
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
Results tagged with
Search options questions only not deleted user 98263

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 …
Cham's user avatar
  • 7,677
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" ? …
Cham's user avatar
  • 7,677
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. …
Cham's user avatar
  • 7,677
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 …
Cham's user avatar
  • 7,677
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. …
Cham's user avatar
  • 7,677
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 ? …
Cham's user avatar
  • 7,677
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 …
Cham's user avatar
  • 7,677