I Christoffel symbols 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
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
995
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top