Affine connection transformation

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 4K views
Mr-R
Messages
123
Reaction score
23
Dear All,


I am teaching myself tensors for the first time. I am using D'Inverno's book and got stuck at page 73. Basically, he says: demand that the first term on the left of the equation to be a type (1,1) tensor. Then he gets the affine connection transformation.

I basically wrote the first term as a second rank mixed tensor transformation. Then I got stuck. I am not sure on how to isolate (?) the affine connection and show how it transforms. I tried many times but failed due to my lack of knowledge of tensors. Could someone help me understand this please?

[itex]\nabla_{c}X^{a}[/itex]= [itex]\partial_{c}[/itex][itex]X^{a}[/itex]+[itex]\Gamma_{bc}^{a}[/itex][itex]X^{b}[/itex]

Thanks in advance! (Sorry if my post isn't very informative as I have to go for 6 hours. When I come back I will be more than happy to upload pictures of my attempts)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can make a coordinate transformation on the term:

$$\partial_c X^a +\Gamma^a_{bc}X^b$$

You know how ##\partial_c X^a## transform (equation 6.1), and it does not transform as a tensor, so now you need that the transformation of ##\Gamma^a_{bc}X^b## to cancel out the "wrong terms".

Are you having troubles with the details?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Matterwave said:
You can make a coordinate transformation on the term:

$$\partial_c X^a +\Gamma^a_{bc}X^b$$

You know how ##\partial_c X^a## transform (equation 6.1), and it does not transform as a tensor, so now you need that the transformation of ##\Gamma^a_{bc}X^b## to cancel out the "wrong terms".

Are you having troubles with the details?

Oh I didn't think of it in that way. Yes my trouble was in the details. I keep messing up the dummy variables and didn't know that I can leave the connection alone while transforming the tensors I know. Like the way Carroll did.

Edit: I managed to derive it finally :smile: but I have a question. In equation 6.1, why do we make [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{'c}}[/itex]= [itex]\frac{\partial x^{d}}{\partial x^{'c}}[/itex][itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{d}}[/itex] ? at first I didnt do this and it didnt work :frown:
 
Last edited:
haushofer said:
Carroll does this in detail in his gr notes, if i remember correctly.

This indeed helped me a lot. Made me discover where I need improvements in. Thanks :smile:
 
Mr-R said:
Oh I didn't think of it in that way. Yes my trouble was in the details. I keep messing up the dummy variables and didn't know that I can leave the connection alone while transforming the tensors I know. Like the way Carroll did.

Edit: I managed to derive it finally :smile: but I have a question. In equation 6.1, why do we make [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{'c}}[/itex]= [itex]\frac{\partial x^{d}}{\partial x^{'c}}[/itex][itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{d}}[/itex] ? at first I didnt do this and it didnt work :frown:


This is just the chain rule from multi-variable calculus.