Connection coefficient transformation law

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the transformation law for connection coefficients as presented in Sean Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry." Participants identify a potential typo in the 2019 edition of the book regarding the sign in equation (3.10), where a plus sign appears instead of a minus sign. The correct transformation law is confirmed as $$\Gamma^{\nu'}_{\mu' \lambda'} = \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac {\partial x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\nu} \Gamma^\nu_{\mu \lambda} - \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac {\partial^2 x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\mu \partial x^\lambda}.$$ The discussion also references an errata list and highlights the importance of careful reading in mathematical texts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of covariant derivatives and tensor calculus
  • Familiarity with connection coefficients and Christoffel symbols
  • Knowledge of differential geometry concepts
  • Experience with mathematical notation and transformations in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the transformation law for Christoffel symbols in various textbooks on General Relativity
  • Study the derivation of covariant derivatives in differential geometry
  • Examine the errata list for Sean Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry" for updates
  • Explore online lecture notes and resources related to connection coefficients
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on General Relativity, differential geometry, and mathematical physics, will benefit from this discussion.

Pencilvester
Messages
214
Reaction score
52
Hello PF, in Carroll’s “Spacetime and Geometry”, he works out the transformation law for connection coefficients in his introduction to covariant derivatives, and I’m wondering if there is a typo in the final equation. He starts with$$\nabla_{\mu} V^{\nu} = \partial_{\mu} V^{\nu} + \Gamma^{\nu}_{\mu \lambda} V^{\lambda}$$and what the transformation law must be if we want the covariant derivative of a vector to be tensorial:$$\nabla_{\mu’} V^{\nu’} = \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu’}} \frac {\partial x^{\nu’}} {\partial x^\nu} \nabla_\mu V^\nu$$Starting with these, he eventually gets this:$$\Gamma^{\nu’}_{\mu’ \lambda’} \frac {\partial x^{\lambda'}} {\partial x^\lambda} V^\lambda + \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} V^\lambda \frac {\partial^2 x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\mu \partial x^\lambda} = \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\nu} \Gamma^\nu_{\mu \lambda} V^\lambda$$I followed him here no problem. The next thing he does is eliminate ##V^\lambda## from both sides, multiplies everything by ##\frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\sigma'}}##, then changes all the ##\sigma'##'s to ##\lambda'##'s (for aesthetics I guess). When I do this I end up with $$\Gamma^{\nu'}_{\mu' \lambda'} = \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac {\partial x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\nu} \Gamma^\nu_{\mu \lambda} - \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac {\partial^2 x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\mu \partial x^\lambda}$$but in the book, he has a ##+## between the two terms on the RHS. Is this simply a typo, or am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know what he writes in the book, but in his online lecture notes he has a minus sign (equation (3.6)).

In general, I prefer the other form of this transformation rule as I find it easier to remember
$$
\newcommand{\tc}[2]{\frac{\partial x^{#1}}{\partial x^{#2}}}
\Gamma^{\nu'}_{\mu'\lambda'} = \tc{\mu}{\mu'}\tc{\lambda}{\lambda'} \tc{\nu'}{\nu} \Gamma^\nu_{\mu\lambda} + \tc{\nu'}{\nu}\frac{\partial^2 x^\nu}{\partial x^{\mu'}\partial x^{\lambda'}}.
$$
The equivalence of the two is rather straightforward to show.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and Pencilvester
Pencilvester said:
[...] but in the book, he has a ##+## between the two terms on the RHS. Is this simply a typo, or am I missing something?
In my copy of Carroll's book (Pearson2014 edition), it is a minus sign -- assuming you're referring to eq(3.10).

Maybe it was a typo in the original edition?

Btw, there is an ongoing errata list here.
 
Orodruin said:
I don't know what he writes in the book, but in his online lecture notes he has a minus sign (equation (3.6)).

In general, I prefer the other form of this transformation rule as I find it easier to remember
$$
\newcommand{\tc}[2]{\frac{\partial x^{#1}}{\partial x^{#2}}}
\Gamma^{\nu'}_{\mu'\lambda'} = \tc{\mu}{\mu'}\tc{\lambda}{\lambda'} \tc{\nu'}{\nu} \Gamma^\nu_{\mu\lambda} + \tc{\nu'}{\nu}\frac{\partial^2 x^\nu}{\partial x^{\mu'}\partial x^{\lambda'}}.
$$
The equivalence of the two is rather straightforward to show.

There definitely is a typo in the new book in equation (3.10). There's a plus sign instead of a minus sign.

Also, Carroll invites the reader to check that the object defined by equation (3.27):
$$\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mu \nu} = \frac 1 2 g^{\sigma \rho}(\partial_{\mu}g_{\nu \rho} + \partial_{\nu}g_{\rho \mu} - \partial_{\rho}g_{\mu \nu})$$
transforms as a connection.

There's no single way to do this, but when I tried it the form given by @Orodruin above (eventually) came out. I wasted a bit of time before I figured out that this is equivalent to the corrected form of (3.10).

Perhaps Carroll intended adding this alternative form in addition to (3.10) and that's why the rogue plus sign appeared. In any case, it's a bit of a trap for the unwary reader.
 
PeroK said:
There definitely is a typo in the new book in equation (3.10). There's a plus sign instead of a minus sign.
Er,... which "new" book are you looking at? Carroll's 2014 edition (Pearson) does have the (correct, afaict) minus sign.
 
strangerep said:
Er,... which "new" book are you looking at? Carroll's 2014 edition (Pearson) does have the (correct, afaict) minus sign.
The latest 2019 edition from CUP.
 
PeroK said:
[...] The latest 2019 edition from CUP.
Hmm, that's interesting. CUP seems to have taken an older (pre-2014) version as the basis for their 2019 edition (sigh), even though Sean says (on his website) that it's the "same book, just with a different cover".

[Edit: I've sent him (Sean Carroll) an email pointing this out.]
 
Last edited:
  • #10
But @Orodruin 's transformation formula in #2 with the + sign is correct, isn't it?
 
  • #11
vanhees71 said:
But @Orodruin 's transformation formula in #2 with the + sign is correct, isn't it?
Yes. This one has a minus.
Pencilvester said:
$$\Gamma^{\nu'}_{\mu' \lambda'} = \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac {\partial x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\nu} \Gamma^\nu_{\mu \lambda} - \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac {\partial^2 x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\mu \partial x^\lambda}$$but in the book, he has a ##+## between the two terms on the RHS. Is this simply a typo, or am I missing something?
 
  • #13
vanhees71 said:
But @Orodruin has a plus, and in my opinion that's the correct one. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoffel_symbols#Transformation_law_under_change_of_variable

or any textbook on vector calculus or GR.
There are two different but equivalent formulas, related by:
$$
\tc{\nu'}{\nu}\frac{\partial^2 x^\nu}{\partial x^{\mu'}\partial x^{\lambda'}} =
- \frac {\partial x^\mu} {\partial x^{\mu'}} \frac {\partial x^\lambda} {\partial x^{\lambda'}} \frac {\partial^2 x^{\nu'}} {\partial x^\mu \partial x^\lambda}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #14
Argh! Yes, careful reading helps!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
963
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K