Graduate Calculating Ricci tensor in AdS space

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the Ricci tensor in Anti-de Sitter (AdS) space using a specific metric in D=3 dimensions. The user has derived the Christoffel symbols and is attempting to compute the Riemann tensor, noting that certain components appear to be zero due to symmetry. There is confusion regarding the contributions of Riemann tensor components with a z-coordinate in the upper index, leading to questions about potential mistakes in the calculations. The conversation also touches on the importance of the metric signature and the use of computational tools like Maxima for verification. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of tensor calculations in curved spacetime and the need for careful consideration of symmetry properties.
HamOnRye
Consider the AdS metric in D+1 dimensions
ds^{2}=\frac{L^{2}}{z^{2}}\left(dz^{2}+\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\right)
I wanted to calculate the Ricci tensor for this metric for D=3. (\eta_{\mu\nu} is the Minkowski metric in D dimensions)
I have found the following Christoffel symbols
\Gamma^{t}_{tz}=\frac{L^{2}}{z^{3}}, \Gamma^{x}_{xz}=\Gamma^{y}_{yz}=\Gamma^{z}_{zz}=-\frac{L^{2}}{z^{3}}
From this point I wanted to determine the Riemann tensor in order to finally determine the Ricci tensor.
What I've got the following contributing Riemann tensors
R^{x}_{zxz}, R^{y}_{zyz}, R^{t}_{ztz}
I also noticed that if I have a z-coordinate in the upper index for the Riemann tensor it will be zero no matter what I choose for the lower indices.
My problem is as follows, based on symmetry, the above Riemann tensors should also be zero but I can't see how. Did I make a mistake with my Christoffel symbols or anywhere else?
Any help is appreciated!

Tim
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is ##\eta_{\mu\mu} = (1,-1,-1)## or ##\eta_{\mu\mu} = (-1,1,1)##? I would think this would matter.
 
The signature is given by ##\eta_{\mu\mu} = (-1,1,1)##
Thanks for responding!
 
Okay, that makes sense. I'm just going to plug and grind with maxima. So if I write things out the metric is,

##\left(\begin{array}[cccc] --f(z) & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & f(z) & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & f(z) & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & f(z) \end{array}\right)##

where ##f(z) = L^2/z^2##. Using the ctensor package in maxima I get 12 non-zero Riemann tensor component all ##\pm 1/z^2##. The constant ##L## seems to drop out.
 
Paul Colby said:
Okay, that makes sense. I'm just going to plug and grind with maxima. So if I write things out the metric is,

##\left(\begin{array}[cccc] --f(z) & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & f(z) & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & f(z) & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & f(z) \end{array}\right)##

where ##f(z) = L^2/z^2##. Using the ctensor package in maxima I get 12 non-zero Riemann tensor component all ##\pm 1/z^2##. The constant ##L## seems to drop out.

Thanks! I made some mistakes with the ##L^{2}## terms.
But I think my main problem, or misunderstanding, still remains.
For the Riemann tensor, if we have a ##z## in the upper index there will be no contribution. But the Riemann tensor I found have a ##z## in the lower indices. But via symmetry we can place this lower index in the upper index, so any contribution with a ##z## in the lower index should also be zero.
I would like to thank you for the help so far and I hope you, or some one else, can point out the flaw in my reasoning/

Tim
 
The symmetries I'm aware of are

##R_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} = -R_{\beta\alpha\mu\nu} = R_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}##​

plus whatever you can get by applying these permutations. So, ##R_{\alpha\alpha\mu\nu} = 0## and so on.
 
Paul Colby said:
The symmetries I'm aware of are

##R_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} = -R_{\beta\alpha\mu\nu} = R_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}##​

plus whatever you can get by applying these permutations. So, ##R_{\alpha\alpha\mu\nu} = 0## and so on.
I'll check the permutations. Thank you for the quick response and the patientce.

Tim
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
973
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K