I need to calculate δR: R is Ricci scalar


by sourena
Tags: δr, ricci, scalar
sourena
sourena is offline
#1
Aug16-10, 07:39 AM
P: 14
I need to calculate δR: R is Ricci scalar
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
nicksauce
nicksauce is offline
#2
Aug16-10, 08:18 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
nicksauce's Avatar
P: 1,276
This should be shown in most GR textbooks...
sourena
sourena is offline
#3
Aug16-10, 11:33 PM
P: 14
Quote Quote by nicksauce View Post
This should be shown in most GR textbooks...
Thank you for your reply. I know the answer of calculation but I couldn't derive it.
This is not a homework.

JustinLevy
JustinLevy is offline
#4
Aug19-10, 03:32 AM
P: 886

I need to calculate δR: R is Ricci scalar


This should help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstei...e_Ricci_scalar
sourena
sourena is offline
#5
Aug29-10, 04:05 AM
P: 14
Thank you for your time and care, but I need to obtain this:
δR=Rμσ δg+gμσ δg^μσ -∇μ ∇σ δg^μσ
in f(R) gravity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F(R)_gravity


Quote Quote by JustinLevy View Post
arkajad
arkajad is offline
#6
Aug29-10, 04:42 AM
P: 1,412
Do you have any problem with these equations:

sourena
sourena is offline
#7
Sep7-10, 04:23 AM
P: 14
No, I don't have problem with these equations, but I have problem to calculate this equation from them:
δR=Rab δgab+gab δgab -∇a ∇b δgab
arkajad
arkajad is offline
#8
Sep7-10, 04:56 AM
P: 1,412
First step:
The term [tex]\nabla_\sigma \left( g^{\mu\nu}\delta\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mu\nu}-g^{\mu\sigma}\delta\Gamma^{\rho}_{\rho_\mu}\right)[/tex]
is of the form [tex]\nabla_\sigma A^\sigma[/tex].
But [tex]\nabla_\sigma A^\sigma=|\det g]^{-\frac12}\partial_\sigma (A^\sigma |\det g|^{\frac12})[/tex]
for any vector field [tex]A^\sigma[/tex]. This is handy.

P.S. For some reason my display is not displaying correctly one character in your first term on the right. So, I do not know what is exactly the formula you would like to have.
JustinLevy
JustinLevy is offline
#9
Sep10-10, 02:55 AM
P: 886
Alright, I tried to work it out, but it looks like I got a sign error somewhere. I wrote everything out in more detail than was probably necessary, so where this occurs can stand out.

Quote Quote by sourena View Post
No, I don't have problem with these equations, but I have problem to calculate this equation from them:
δR=Rab δgab+gab δgab -∇a ∇b δgab
Okay, so we at least have a starting point we can agree on:
[tex]\delta R = R_{ab} \delta g^{ab} + g^{ab} \delta R_{ab}[/tex]
[tex]\delta R_{ab} &= [\nabla_c \delta \Gamma^c_{ab} - \nabla_b \delta \Gamma^c_{c a}][/tex]

As in wikipedia noting that [tex]\delta \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}\,[/tex] is actually the difference of two connections, it should transform as a tensor. Therefore, it can be written as
[tex]\delta \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda d}\left(\nabla_\mu\delta g_{d\nu}+\nabla_\nu\delta g_{d\mu}-\nabla_d\delta g_{\mu\nu} \right)[/tex]

and substituting in the equation, after playing with it in excruciating detail one finds:
[tex]\begin{align*}
\delta R_{ab} &= [\nabla_c \delta \Gamma^c_{ab} - \nabla_b \delta \Gamma^c_{c a}] \\
&= [\nabla_c \frac{1}{2}g^{c d}\left(\nabla_a\delta g_{db}+\nabla_b\delta g_{da}-\nabla_d\delta g_{ab} \right)
-\nabla_b \frac{1}{2}g^{c d}\left(\nabla_c\delta g_{da}+\nabla_a\delta g_{dc}-\nabla_d\delta g_{ca} \right)] \\
&= \frac{1}{2}g^{c d}[\left(\nabla_c\nabla_a\delta g_{db}+\nabla_c\nabla_b\delta g_{da}-\nabla_c\nabla_d\delta g_{ab} \right)
-\left(\nabla_b\nabla_c\delta g_{da}+\nabla_b\nabla_a\delta g_{dc}-\nabla_b\nabla_d\delta g_{ca} \right)]
\end{align*}[/tex]
swap the derivative order on the fourth term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covaria...ative#Examples
[tex]\nabla_b\nabla_c\delta g_{da} = \nabla_c\nabla_b\delta g_{da} + R^{e}{}_{dbc} \delta g_{ea} + R^{e}{}_{abc} \delta g_{de}[/tex]
[tex]\begin{align*}
g^{ab}\delta R_{ab} &= g^{ab} \frac{1}{2}g^{c d}[\left(\nabla_c\nabla_a\delta g_{db}-\nabla_c\nabla_d\delta g_{ab} \right)
-\left(R^{e}{}_{dbc} \delta g_{ea} + R^{e}{}_{abc} \delta g_{de} + \nabla_b\nabla_a\delta g_{dc}-\nabla_b\nabla_d\delta g_{ca} \right)] \\
&= \frac{1}{2}g^{c d}[\left(\nabla_c\nabla^b \delta g_{db}-\nabla_c\nabla_d g^{ab} \delta g_{ab} \right)
-\left(R^{e}{}_d{}^a{}_c \delta g_{ea} + R^{eb}{}_{bc} \delta g_{de} + \nabla_b\nabla^b \delta g_{dc}-\nabla^a \nabla_d\delta g_{ca} \right)] \\

&= \frac{1}{2}[\left(\nabla^d\nabla^b \delta g_{db}-\nabla^d\nabla_d g^{ab} \delta g_{ab} \right)
-\left(R^{eca}{}_c \delta g_{ea} + R^{eb}{}_b{}^d \delta g_{de} + \nabla_b\nabla^b g^{c d} \delta g_{cd} -\nabla^a \nabla^c\delta g_{ca} \right)] \\

&= \frac{1}{2}[\left(\nabla^d\nabla^b \delta g_{db}-\nabla^d\nabla_d g^{ab} \delta g_{ab} \right)
-\left(R^{ea}\delta g_{ea} - R^{de} \delta g_{de} + \nabla_b\nabla^b g^{c d} \delta g_{cd} -\nabla^a \nabla^c\delta g_{ca} \right)] \\

&= \nabla^a\nabla^b \delta g_{ab} - g^{ab} \nabla^c\nabla_c \delta g_{ab}
\end{align*}
[/tex]

Hmm...
maybe there isn't an error. Does
[itex]\delta g_{ab} = - \delta g^{ab}[/itex] ?
I'm too tired to check right now.
arkajad
arkajad is offline
#10
Sep10-10, 03:15 AM
P: 1,412
Quote Quote by JustinLevy View Post
Hmm...
maybe there isn't an error. Does
[itex]\delta g_{ab} = - \delta g^{ab}[/itex] ?
I'm too tired to check right now.
Not exactly.

Use:

[tex]0=\delta ( \delta^a_b) =\delta (g^{ac}g_{cb})= ....[/tex]

Now use the Leibniz rule, calculate what you need.
JustinLevy
JustinLevy is offline
#11
Sep10-10, 02:33 PM
P: 886
Thanks.

Alright, so
[tex]0=\delta ( \delta^a_b) =\delta (g^{ac}g_{cb})= g_{cb} \delta g^{ac} + g^{ac} \delta g_{cb}[/tex]
[tex]g_{cb} \delta g^{ac} = - g^{ac} \delta g_{cb}[/tex]

Thus manipulating the previous posts result gives
[tex]\begin{align*}
g^{ab}\delta R_{ab}
&= \nabla^a\nabla^b \delta g_{ab} - g^{ab} \nabla^c\nabla_c \delta g_{ab} \\
&= \nabla^a\nabla_c g^{bc} \delta g_{ab} - \nabla^c\nabla_c g^{ab} \delta g_{ab} \\
&= - \nabla^a\nabla_c g_{ab} \delta g^{bc} + \nabla^c\nabla_c g_{ab} \delta g^{ab} \\
\end{align*}
[/tex]
which is what sourena wanted to find:
[tex] g^{ab}\delta R_{ab} = g_{ab} \nabla^c\nabla_c \delta g^{ab} - \nabla_a\nabla_b \delta g^{ab}[/tex]

...

arkajad,
I assume your post #8 hint leads to the result faster, but I'm not sure how to apply that. Once we've converted from covariant to ordinary coordinate derivative, how do we recognize the result as terms with two covariant derivatives?
arkajad
arkajad is offline
#12
Sep10-10, 03:19 PM
P: 1,412
The trick with ordinary derivatives is useful when you calculate under the integral. There, in variational calculus, when you assume that variations vanish at the boundary (usually at infinity), you need a true divergence of a vector field, and not some "covariant one". You discard such terms converting volume integral into surface integrals using ordinary rules of the calculus.
sourena
sourena is offline
#13
Sep29-10, 02:36 AM
P: 14
Dear JustinLevy
Sorry for being late to answer your posts. I value your hard work to obtain this expression a great deal. Thank you very much for your time and care.
sourena
sourena is offline
#14
Sep29-10, 02:51 AM
P: 14
Dear arkajad
I wanted to calculate this:
[tex] g^{ab}\delta R_{ab} = g_{ab} \nabla^c\nabla_c \delta g^{ab} - \nabla_a\nabla_b \delta g^{ab}[/tex]
or
[tex]\delta R = R_{ab} \delta g^{ab} + g_{ab} \nabla^c\nabla_c \delta g^{ab} - \nabla_a\nabla_b \delta g^{ab}[/tex]
haushofer
haushofer is offline
#15
Sep29-10, 03:14 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 869
Do you know how to derive

[tex]
\nabla_{\mu}\delta\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\nu\rho} = \frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda\alpha}[\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\delta g_{\rho\alpha} + \nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\rho}\delta g_{\nu\alpha} - \nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\alpha}\delta g_{\nu\rho}]
[/tex]
?
This can be shown directly by varying the connection, but you can also guess the form of it; varying the connection gives a tensor, and the partial derivatives in it can only become covariant ones (convince yourself if you're not!). You can plug this in the Palatini equation, which gives

[tex]
\delta R_{\mu\nu\rho}^{\ \ \ \ \lambda} = \frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda\alpha}[\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\delta g_{\rho\alpha} + \nabla_{\mu\rho}\delta g_{\nu\alpha}-\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\alpha}\delta g_{\nu\rho}]
- \frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda\alpha}[\nabla_{\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\delta g_{\rho\alpha}+\nabla_{\nu}\nabla_{\rho}\delta g_{\mu\alpha} - \nabla_{\nu}\nabla_{\alpha}\delta g_{\mu\rho}]
[/tex]

Does this help?
haushofer
haushofer is offline
#16
Sep29-10, 03:16 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 869
Do you know how to derive

[tex]
\nabla_{\mu}\delta\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\nu\rho} = \frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda\alpha}[\nabla_{\mu}\na_{\nu}\delta g_{\rho\alpha} + \nabla_{\mu}\na_{\rho}\delta g_{\nu\alpha} - \nabla_{\mu}\na_{\alpha}\delta g_{\nu\rho}]
[/tex]

This can be shown directly, but you can also guess the form of it; varying the connection gives a tensor, and the partial derivatives in it can only become covariant ones (convince yourself if you're not!). You can plug this in the Palatini equation, which gives

[tex]
\delta R_{\mu\nu\rho}^{\ \ \ \ \lambda} &=& \frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda\alpha}[\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\delta g_{\rho\alpha} + \nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\rho}\delta g_{\nu\alpha}-\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\alpha}\delta g_{\nu\rho}]
- \frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda\alpha}[\nabla_{\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\delta g_{\rho\alpha}+\nabla_{\nu}\nabla_{\rho}\delta g_{\mu\alpha} - \nabla_{\nu}\nabla_{\alpha}\delta g_{\mu\rho}]
[/tex]
yuiop
yuiop is offline
#17
Sep29-10, 04:06 AM
P: 3,967
The equation and mathematics posted in this thread are very impressive, but I always wonder how useful they are (or what the point of them is) if these sort of calculations seemingly can not be used to answer "simple" questions like the ones posed here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=431712 and here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...38#post2901038 ?

This is one reason I have never made the effort to really try and learn the apparatus of tensors, because of the seeming limited applicability of these formalisms. Is it that tensors are "overkill" to solve the questions posed in those links (which have not yet been solved), like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, or is it just that the people that like to play with tensors never look at or try to solve the "simple" questions?

My real question is this. If a person makes an effort to learn tensors would they able to answer those "simple" questions and is it worth the effort to learn these formidable looking formalisms, if all you want to do is solve the sort of simple questions posed in those threads? (which up to now are seemingly unsolvable).
arkajad
arkajad is offline
#18
Sep29-10, 04:36 AM
P: 1,412
There is another simple question: "What is the purpose of life?" For an engineer his purpose can be, for instance, to learn about elasticity and to apply his knowledge. And when you start learning elasticity stuff - you will soon find that you can't go too far without tensors. So it all depends on your purpose.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ricci scalar Special & General Relativity 4
Ricci Scalar Problem Special & General Relativity 3
Surface with Ricci scalar equal to two Advanced Physics Homework 1
From the scalar of curvature (Newman-Penrose formalism) to the Ricci scalar Special & General Relativity 8
Ricci scalar Special & General Relativity 2