Vector Field Commutator Identity in Covariant Derivative

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from MTW Gravitation concerning the commutator identity involving covariant derivatives of vector fields and a scalar field. Participants are examining whether the identity [D_A,D_B]f = D_[A,B]f holds true in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the validity of the commutator identity and its implications. Some are attempting to relate the identity to familiar notations and definitions, while others are questioning the assumptions made regarding the operators and the nature of the fields involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their interpretations and clarifications. Some have expressed confusion regarding the notation and the implications of the identity, while others have provided insights that may help clarify the situation. There is no explicit consensus yet, as differing interpretations are still being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential misunderstandings related to the notation of vector fields and scalar fields, as well as the specific definitions of the covariant derivative operators being used. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity of the problem and the need for careful consideration of the definitions involved.

schulmannerism
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I am trying to solve an exercise from MTW Gravitation and the following issue has come up:

Let D denote uppercase delta (covariant derivative operator)
[ _ , _ ] denotes the commutator
f is a scalar field, and A and B are vector fields

Question:
Is it true that
[D_A,D_B]f = D_[A,B]f
?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Using a more familiar notation, i'll write

[tex]\left[\nabla_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]_{-}f(x) \ ? \ \nabla_{\left[\mu,\nu\right]} f(x)[/tex]

A remark. I've never seen the operator in the RHS. I'm sure [tex]? \ \leftrightarrow \ \neq[/tex].

Daniel.
 
Well the original problem is to show that if [tex]f(P)[/tex] is a scalar field such that [tex]f(P_0)=1[/tex], and [tex]A,B,C[/tex] are vector fields, then
[tex][\nabla_A,\nabla_B](f(P)C(P))-[\nabla_A,\nabla_B{A}](C(P))=[\nabla_{[A,B]}(C(P))[/tex]
Unless I am doing something wrong, this immediately reduces to the above identity, which doesn't look true to me either...
 
Last edited:
Hurkyl -- your (deleted) post was helpful. I see now that I was having trouble with the notation in which a vector times a scalar field denotes the directional derivative in that direction. Then the identity does follow, as you pointed out.
Thanks
 
Well, the identity in your original post seems clear, unless I'm making a dumb mistake (which is easily possible): according to Spivak, [itex]\nabla_X f = X f[/itex], so we have:

[tex] [\nabla_A, \nabla_B] f = (\nabla_A \nabla_B - \nabla_B \nabla_A) f = (AB - BA) f = [A, B] f = \nabla_{[A, B]} f[/tex]

Your second post boggles me, because it looks like you're trying to take X(Y) where X and Y are both vector fields.
 
Whoops I wrote my second post incorrectly, it's editted.
 
Ouch, i guess you both realized that i hadn't read the "A and B are vector fields" part and mistakenly took them as subscripts.


Daniel.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
10K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K