A Anti-self Dual Part (2,2) Riemann Curvature Tensor

abhinavabhatt
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Riemann curvature tensor has two pairs of anti-symmetric index. Is the double of Riemann tensor is Dual ? That how to define the anti self dual part of Riemann tensor.?
i am facing problems in the definition of dual oF some objects which has pair of anti symmetric indices e.g. Weyl curvature tensor. Double dual is there in the literature but given that how to find the anti self dual part of that. the problem is written in attached the file.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure what the question is! You say you have a problem with a definition, but you haven't given a definition! Are you trying to figure out what the definition should be?! Where does all this come from and what is it for?

The Riemann tensor has two pairs of indices and you can use either of them to define a dual. Usually they are called the left and the right dual. If the metric is Einstein then they are equal.
 
abhinavabhatt said:
the problem is written in attached the file
This is not acceptable. Please use the PF LaTeX feature to post equations directly in the thread. There is a "LaTeX Guide" button at the lower left of the post window.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top