The vanishing of the covariant derivative of the metric tensor

In summary, in this conversation, the participants discuss the concept of a covariant derivative of a metric tensor in flat space. They explore whether this relation holds in Riemannian manifolds and if it should be taken as an axiom or can be derived from other assumptions. They also discuss the different ways of approaching the concept, such as through the geodesic equation or the Palatini formalism. The importance of considering the connection and its role in determining if a field "changes" is also highlighted.
  • #36
lavinia said:
I don't know the Physics so this is a naive question.

The local Lorentz frame seems to be interpreted to say that the Space-Time metric can be represented in normal coordinates as diagonal ±1 with first partial derivatives equal to zero at a central point. But doesn't this assume that the connection and the metric are compatible? Why does one do a proof?

It also seems that the Christoffel symbols are assumed to to be zero at the central point. Doesn't this require the affine connection to be torsion free? If not, I don't see how the Christoffel symbols can all vanish.
As a counter example: in spherical polars in a flat space and flat spacetime, the Christoffel symbols are not zero.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Michael Price said:
As a counter example: in spherical polars in a flat space and flat spacetime, the Christoffel symbols are not zero.
This has nothing to do with the central point of normal coordinates. The Christoffel symbols of normal coordinates do indeed vanish at the central point and this does require the connection to be torsion free (at least at the central point).
 
  • #38
Orodruin said:
This has nothing to do with the central point of normal coordinates. The Christoffel symbols of normal coordinates do indeed vanish at the central point and this does require the connection to be torsion free (at least at the central point).
You're right, I wasn't thinking of normal coordinates which I should have been.
 

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
243
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
190
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top