It is well known that geodesics on some manifold M, covered by some coordinates xμ, say with a Riemannian metric can be obtained by an action principle . Let C be curve R→M, xμ(s) be an affine parametrization of C. (Using same symbol for coordinates and parametrization here, but it's standard). The action yielding geodesics is:
S(C)=∫CLds
Now the popular text by Nakahara makes the claim that variation of F≡L22
Will yield the exact same action principle solutions. However, the reference above ONLY shows that:
C solves euler Lagrange equation for L ⟹ C solves euler Lagrange equation for F
And this can be shown through a direct brute force computation.
My question: Is the converse of the above true, and how does one go about proving it. In particular, how do we show that F yields no extraneous solutions to the Euler Lagrange equations.
Answer
The upshot of this answer will be as follows: if a path satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L2/2, then it will satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equations for L, but the converse does not hold unless the path has affine parameterization.
Let L=L(x,˙x) be a lagrangian that is local function of only position and velocity, then a parameterized path x(s)=(xi(s)) on M is said to satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equations for L provided ∂L∂xi(x(s),˙x(s))−dds∂L∂˙xi(x(s),˙x(s))=0
Lemma 1. If x satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L, then the Beltrami-Identity holds for x:
ddsL(x(s),˙x(s))=dds(∂L∂˙xi(x(s),˙x(s))⋅˙xi(s))
for all s in the domain of x.
Proof. Just do it. Note that, the proof hinges on the fact that L is a local function of only x and ˙x.
Lemma 2. If L(x,˙x)=√gij(x)˙xi˙xj, then L satisfies the following identity:
∂(L2/2)∂˙xi(x,˙x)˙xi=L(x,˙x)2
Proof. Try this yourself too!
Corollary. If L(x,˙x)=√gij(x)˙xi˙xj and x satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L2/2, then x satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L.
Proof. If x satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L2, then Lemma 1 gives the following Beltrami identity (we use notational shorthand here -- all expressions should be evaluated on x(s))
d(L2/2)ds=dds∂(L2/2)∂˙xi⋅˙xi
On the other hand, evaluating both sides of Lemma 2 on x(s), and taking the derivative of both sides with respect to s gives
dds∂(L2/2)∂˙xi⋅˙xi=d(L2)ds
Combining these facts shows that d(L2)/ds=0 which implies that L2 is constant along x(s) and therefore that L is also constant along x(s):
dLds=0
Now, we separately notice that since x satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L2/2, we have
0=∂(L2/2)∂xi−dds∂(L2/2)∂˙xi=L(∂L∂xi−dds∂L∂˙xi)−dLds∂L∂˙xi=L(∂L∂xi−dds∂L∂˙xi)
and therefore as long as L≠0, we see that x satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L as was desired.
The crucial point here is that because of the specific form of L, any path satisfying the Euler-Lagrange equation for L2/2 has the nice property that dL/ds=0 along the path. This allows one to kill the term in (⋆) which is the term that is the essential difference between the Euler-Lagrange equations for L2/2 and the Euler-Lagrange equations for L.
However, if x satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for L, then it is not necessarily the case that dL/ds=0 along x, so in this case, one can't kill that term in (⋆), so it need not be a solution to the Euler-Lagrange equation for L2/2.
Nonetheless, if x is affinely parameterized, then it will automatically have the property that L is constant along it, so it will automatically satisfy both Euler-Lagrange equations.
In fact, using parts of the computations above, it is not hard to show that
Proposition. Let L(x,˙x)=√gij(x)˙xi˙xj. A path x is an affinely parameterized geodesic if and only if is solves the Euler-Lagrange equations of both L and L2/2.
So the Euler-Lagrange equations of L2/2 yield all affiniely parameterized geodesics, while the Euler-Lagrange equations of L yield all geodesics, regardless of parameterization.
No comments:
Post a Comment