Commutator of two covariant derivatives

ibazulic
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I'm trying to calculate a commutator of two covariant derivatives, as it was done in Caroll, on page 122. The problem is, I don't get the terms he does :-/

If ##\nabla_{\mu}, \nabla_{\nu}## denote two covariant derivatives and ##V^{\rho}## is a vector field, i need to compute ##[\nabla_{\mu}, \nabla_{\nu}]V^{\rho}##. Covariant derivative is defined as

[tex]\nabla_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} + \Gamma^{\nu}_{\mu\lambda}[/tex]

Putting it into the definition of the commutator, one can write

[tex] \begin{align}<br /> [\nabla_{\mu}, \nabla_{\nu}]V^{\rho} &= \nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu} V^{\rho} - \nabla_{\nu}\nabla_{\mu} V^{\rho} \nonumber \\ &=\partial_{\mu} (\nabla_{\nu} V^{\rho})+\Gamma^{\rho}_{\mu\sigma}(\nabla_{\nu}V^{\sigma})-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\lambda}V^{\rho}+(\mu \leftrightarrow \nu) \nonumber \\ &=\ldots \nonumber<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

What gives me problems is the 3rd term in the 2nd row. I don't know where this third term comes from. The expansion is even more problematic, Caroll expands these three terms into 7:

[tex]\ldots\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}V^{\rho}+(\partial_{\mu}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\nu\sigma})V^{\sigma}+\Gamma^{\rho}{\gamma\sigma}\partial_{\mu}V^{\rho}-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\partial_{\lambda}V^{\rho}-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\lambda\sigma}V^{\sigma}+\Gamma^{\rho}_{\mu\sigma}\partial_{\nu}V^{\sigma}+\Gamma^{\rho}_{\mu\sigma}V^{\lambda}-(\mu \leftrightarrow \nu)\ldots[/tex]

Any ideas would be very much appreciative.

:-)
 
on Phys.org
ibazulic said:
What gives me problems is the 3rd term in the 2nd row. I don't know where this third term comes from.
The action of the first covariant derivative is on a type (1,1) tensor. As such, you must include one term with a Christoffel symbol for both the covariant and the contravariant index of that tensor.

ibazulic said:
. Covariant derivative is defined as
This seems to be part of your problem. Your definition of the contravariant derivative both contains too many indices on one side and seems like it is coming from the action on a contravariant vector only. You need to look up the general definition.
 
Caroll defines the covariant derivative as follows:

[tex]\nabla_\mu V^{\nu} = \partial_{\mu}V^{\nu}+\Gamma^{\nu}_{\mu\sigma}V^{\sigma}[/tex]

(formula 3.2 on page 93)

:when i wrote the formula in my first post, i omitted the vector field, just gave a definition on what ##\nabla_{\mu}## is. that's why i don't really understand your comment. can you clarify a bit further?
 
ibazulic said:
Caroll defines the covariant derivative as follows:
You will note that in this definition the indices are contracted between the vector field and the Christoffel symbol. It is therefore not possible to simply remove the vector field from the definition.

ibazulic said:
that's why i don't really understand your comment. can you clarify a bit further?
Which part do you have problems with? The fact that ##\nabla_\mu V^\nu## is a type (1,1) tensor or how the covariant derivative acts on arbitrary tensors? The latter should be defined a little bit later in Carroll.
 
Orodruin said:
You will note that in this definition the indices are contracted between the vector field and the Christoffel symbol. It is therefore not possible to simply remove the vector field from the definition.

true, my mistake about that one.

Which part do you have problems with? The fact that ##\nabla_\mu V^\nu## is a type (1,1) tensor or how the covariant derivative acts on arbitrary tensors? The latter should be defined a little bit later in Carroll.

now when i reread the first comment again, i see your point :-) thanks. one more question: are indicies in the 2nd and 3rd term correct? now that i look at it, it seems they aren't but I'm not sure.
 
ibazulic said:
are indicies in the 2nd and 3rd term correct?
Yes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
8K