Christoffel symbols transformation law

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
6 replies · 6K views
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):
[tex]\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}[/tex]

Since this must be true for any vector [itex]V^{\lambda}[/itex], that can be eliminated. We can then multiply by [itex]\partial x^{\lambda}/\partial x^{\sigma'}[/itex] on both sides, and relabel [itex]\sigma' \to \lambda'[/itex] to get:
[tex]\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}}[/tex]

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).
 
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!)