Connection coefficient transformation law

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the transformation law for connection coefficients as presented in Sean Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry." Participants examine potential discrepancies between the equations in the book and their own calculations, particularly focusing on the signs in the transformation law and whether there are typos in different editions of the text.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions a potential typo in Carroll's equation regarding the transformation law for connection coefficients, noting a discrepancy in the signs.
  • Another participant references an online version of Carroll's notes that contains a different sign, suggesting that the transformation rule can be expressed in a more memorable form.
  • Several participants mention different editions of Carroll's book, with some asserting that the 2014 edition has a minus sign while the 2019 edition has a plus sign.
  • There is a discussion about the equivalence of different forms of the transformation law, with some participants asserting that both forms are valid but differ in presentation.
  • One participant expresses frustration over the confusion caused by the differing editions and signs, indicating that this could mislead readers.
  • Another participant provides a reference to Wikipedia to support their view on the correct form of the transformation law.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the sign discrepancy constitutes a typo or if it is a matter of differing interpretations of the transformation law. Multiple competing views remain regarding the correct form of the transformation law and the implications of the different book editions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential for confusion arising from the existence of multiple editions of Carroll's book, which may contain different equations or signs. There is also mention of an errata list that could clarify some of these issues.

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
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K