Covariant Derivative: A^μₛᵦ Definition & Use

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition and implications of the covariant derivative, specifically the expression A^\mu_{\sigma} = \frac{\partial A^\mu}{\partial x_{\sigma}} + \Gamma^\mu_{\sigma \alpha}A^\alpha. Participants explore its justification, the nature of derivatives in the context of tensors, and the philosophical underpinnings of mathematical definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical inquiry

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the covariant derivative is defined as it is because it works, while others argue it is derived from the concept of parallel displacement.
  • There is a contention that the ordinary derivative of a tensor does not behave as a tensor under coordinate transformations, necessitating the additional term involving the connection coefficients.
  • A participant emphasizes the distinction between asking "Why is this true?" and "What compels this definition?" suggesting that the latter is more relevant to the discussion.
  • Some participants challenge the idea that conventional limits should be the sole basis for defining derivatives, proposing that definitions can be more flexible and context-dependent.
  • There is a discussion on the philosophical nature of mathematical definitions, with some arguing that mathematics is invented to serve specific purposes rather than discovered as innate truths.
  • Concerns are raised about the adequacy of traditional definitions of derivatives in various mathematical contexts, including non-metrized settings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the motivations behind the definition of the covariant derivative, with no consensus reached on a singular justification or understanding of its necessity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the philosophical implications of mathematical definitions and their applications.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the definition of the covariant derivative may not be the only possible formulation, suggesting that other definitions could exist depending on the context or requirements of the problem at hand.

  • #31
And back again into the loop: what exactly is the definition of covariant derivative you're starting from then? Because the problem seems to be you can't translate from your definition to this one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
For the "pictoral" approach I mentioned in more detail, if you can get a hold of MTW's book "Gravitation", it's discussed around pg 244 in chapter 10.

As far as the detailed answer to your question

A general vector x can be represented as x^i e_i, where the e_i are the basis vectors.

Thus in a cartesian coordinate system we would have as basis vectors e_x, e_y, e_z, in a cylindrical coordinate system we would have e_r, e_theta, e_z, etc etc.

The definition of the Christoffel symbols

\Gamma^{\mu}{}_{\sigma \alpha}[/itex] is that they describe how the basis vectors transform in terms of the basis vectors.<br /> <br /> i.e we take<br /> <br /> \nabla_{\sigma} e_{\alpha} <br /> <br /> and express it in terms of the basis vectors as<br /> <br /> \nabla_{\sigma} e_{\alpha} = \Gamma^{\mu}{}_{\alpha \sigma} e_{\mu}<br /> <br /> The rest is the chain rule. \nabla_{\sigma} A^{\mu}e_{\mu} = (\nabla_{\sigma}A^{\mu}) e_{\mu} +(\nabla_{\sigma}e_{\mu})A^{\mu}<br /> <br /> The first term gives the partial derivative, the second term gives the Christoffel symbols.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
668
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K