Christoffel symbols transformation law

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation law for Christoffel symbols as presented in Carroll's General Relativity book. Participants are examining the derivation of the transformation law, specifically focusing on the signs in the equations and the implications of index notation. The scope includes theoretical aspects of general relativity and mathematical reasoning related to tensor calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the presence of a plus sign in the transformation law for Christoffel symbols, suggesting that following Carroll's derivation leads to a minus sign instead.
  • Another participant notes that their copy of Carroll's book also has a minus sign, indicating a potential discrepancy in editions or interpretations.
  • A third participant refers to an external source (Wikipedia) that presents the transformation law with a plus sign, prompting questions about the correctness of different sources.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of being careful with index notation, suggesting that this may be a source of confusion in the derivation.
  • Another participant provides detailed mathematical steps to clarify the derivation, showing how the signs and indices can lead to different interpretations of the transformation law.
  • A later reply expresses uncertainty about how the index handling affects the original question, indicating a lack of clarity on the relationship between the provided mathematical details and Carroll's derivation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct sign in the transformation law for Christoffel symbols. Multiple competing views remain, with references to different sources and interpretations of the derivation.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the dependence on specific editions of texts, potential algebraic or relabeling issues, and the handling of indices, which may affect the interpretation of the transformation law.

guitarphysics
Messages
241
Reaction score
7
In Carroll's GR book (pg. 96), the transformation law for Christoffel symbols is derived from the requirement that the covariant derivative be tensorial. I think I understand that, and the derivation Carroll carries out, up until this step (I have a very simple question here, I believe- something stupid I'm not seeing):
\Gamma^{\nu'}_{\mu'\lambda'} \frac{\partial x^{\lambda'}}{\partial x^{\lambda}}V^{\lambda} + \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\mu'}}V^{\lambda}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial x^{\nu'}}{\partial x^{\lambda}} = \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\mu'}}\frac{\partial x^{\nu'}}{\partial x^{\nu}} \Gamma^{\nu}_{\mu\lambda}V^{\lambda}

Since this must be true for any vector V^{\lambda}, that can be eliminated. We can then multiply by \partial x^{\lambda}/\partial x^{\sigma'} on both sides, and relabel \sigma' \to \lambda' to get:
\Gamma^{\nu'}_{\mu'\lambda'} = \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\mu'}}\frac{\partial x^{\lambda}}{\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac{\partial x^{\nu'}}{\partial x^{\nu}} \Gamma^{\nu}_{\mu\lambda} + \frac{\partial x^{mu}}{\partial x^{\mu'}}\frac{\partial x^{\lambda}}{\partial x^{\lambda'}}\frac{\partial^2 x^{\nu'}}{\partial x^{\mu} \partial x^{\lambda}}

Now, my question is just this: why the hell is there a plus sign in the last equation, instead of a minus sign? If I follow Carroll's steps directly from the first equation, I get a minus sign! :(
Sorry if it's obvious- any help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
guitarphysics said:
Now, my question is just this: why the hell is there a plus sign in the last equation, instead of a minus sign? If I follow Carroll's steps directly from the first equation, I get a minus sign!

My copy of Carroll's book has a minus sign (in (3.10) on page 96).
 
As Mr-R noted, be careful with the indices!

I have to catch my bus now, but I will try to type in the details after I get home tonight.
 
Here are the quantitative details:

$$\begin{align}
\frac{\partial x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial x^{\lambda }}{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial ^{2}x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu }\partial x^{\lambda }} &= \frac{\partial x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\left( \frac{\partial x^{\lambda }}{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda }}\right) \frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^\mu} \\
&= \frac{\partial x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu }}\right) \\
&= \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\left( \frac{\partial x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu }}\right) -\frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu }}\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\right) \\
&= \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\left( \frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\right) -\frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu }}\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\right) \\
&= \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\left( \delta _{\mu ^{\prime }}^{\nu ^{\prime }}\right) -\frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu }}\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}}\frac{\partial x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}}\right) \\
&= -\frac{\partial x^{\nu ^{\prime }}}{\partial x^{\mu }}\frac{\partial ^{2}x^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\lambda ^{\prime }}\partial x^{\mu ^{\prime }}} .
\end{align}$$

Either the expression at the beginning or the term at the end can be used. Not the differing signs (and indices!).
 
Sorry for the late response, I had been procrastinating going over the indices :s
I'm still not really seeing how that affects the original post; the last term you end on is not present, I believe, in Carroll's derivation at all. (It probably is and I'm just not seeing it- in which case I apologize!)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
704
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K