Covariant derivative of an anti-symmetric tensor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the covariant derivative of an antisymmetric tensor, specifically addressing the equation involving the covariant derivatives of such tensors. Participants explore the conditions under which the equation holds and seek clarification on related concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equation T_{ab;c} + T_{ca;b} + T_{bc;a} = 0 and seeks guidance on how to demonstrate it.
  • Another participant proposes expressing T_{ab} in terms of partial derivatives to achieve antisymmetry, questioning the conditions under which this is valid and whether partial derivatives commute.
  • A third participant challenges the correctness of the second equation and suggests expanding covariant derivatives into partial derivatives and connection terms.
  • One participant asks for a counterexample if the proposition is not true, specifically looking for cases where T_{ab;c} + T_{ca;b} + T_{bc;a} does not equal zero.
  • Another participant mentions that T is a 2-form and discusses the implications of working on a manifold with trivial de Rham cohomology.
  • There is a suggestion that the equation holds true for antisymmetric tensors with lower indices under a Christoffel connection and invites demonstration through expansion.
  • One participant emphasizes the need to show that the right-hand side of the equation is identically equal to zero or to provide a counterexample.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of the exterior derivative of an antisymmetric tensor and notes that it is not generally zero.
  • Some participants express concern about the appropriateness of the thread being categorized as homework-related.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the initial proposition and the methods to demonstrate it. There is no consensus on whether the equation holds under all conditions, and some participants seek counterexamples while others defend the proposition.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of antisymmetry and the conditions under which partial derivatives commute. There is uncertainty regarding the general applicability of the proposed equations and the assumptions involved in their derivation.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in differential geometry, tensor calculus, and the properties of antisymmetric tensors may find this discussion relevant.

Irid
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Given an antisymmetric tensor

T^{ab}=-T^{ab}

show that

T_{ab;c} + T_{ca;b} + T_{bc;a} = 0

If I explicitly write out the covariant derivative, all terms with Christoffel symbols cancel pair-wise, and I'm left to demonstrate that

T_{ab,c} + T_{ca,b} + T_{bc,a} = 0

and this I have no idea how to do. Could anybody put me on the right track please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK I just came up with an idea. Assuming (under what conditions?!) that I can express

T_{ab} = T_{a,b}-T_{b,a}

so as to get antisymmetry, and doing the same for all three terms, they all cancel pair-wise, on the condition that ordinary partial derivatives commute. So my updated question now is, (i) can I always regard a generic tensor T_ab as a partial derivative of some other tensor T_a, and (ii) do the partial derivatives always commute?
 
Have you presented your problem correctly? You're second equation presented in post #1 doesn't seem to be generally true.

In any case, I don't see any obvious tricks. Just expand your covariant derivatives into partial derivatives and connection terms using the general rule for tensors with lower indices that you've been given.

What you have in post #2 is not even close.
 
I've been given this question as an assignment. Anyway, if the proposition is not true, could you suggest a counter example such that

T_{ab;c} + T_{ca;b} + T_{bc;a} \neq 0

when T_{ab} = -T_{ba}?
 
T is a 2-form. dT is a 3-form which is generally non zero, unless T is exact. The question probably assumes working on a manifold with trivial de Rham cohomology, thus T is assumed to be exact.
 
Last edited:
Irid said:
I've been given this question as an assignment. Anyway, if the proposition is not true, could you suggest a counter example such that

T_{ab;c} + T_{ca;b} + T_{bc;a} \neq 0

when T_{ab} = -T_{ba}?

Sure. For antisymmetric tensors with lower indeces

T_{ab;c} + T_{ca;b} + T_{bc;a} = T_{ab,c} + T_{ca,b} + T_{bc,a}

is always true for a Christoffel connection (and I think, any connection). Can you demonstrate this by expansion?
 
Yes, I have demonstrated it. What remains to show is that the right-hand-side is identically equal to zero (or give a counter example).
 
Irid said:
Yes, I have demonstrated it. What remains to show is that the right-hand-side is identically equal to zero (or give a counter example).

OK, so you no longer need to involve the Christoffel connection but just use the covariant derivatives

This defines the exterior derivative of an asymmetric tensor with two lower indices:

\partial_{[a} T_{bc]} \equiv T_{ab,c} + T_{ca,b} + T_{bc,a}

a, b, and c are cyclically permuted in each term.

Hint: The exterior derivative is not in general zero, as bigubau has pointed out.

P.S. I was a lot sleepier than I thought when I first posted this, so left out a constant. For T antisymmetric,

\partial_{[a} T_{bc]} \equiv 6 \left[ T_{ab,c} + T_{ca,b} + T_{bc,a} \right]
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't this be in HOMEWORK?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: manakasinah
  • #10
Naty1 said:
Shouldn't this be in HOMEWORK?

Are you offended?
 
  • #11
maybe I should be ..having been severely chastised in the past for once simply posting a technical question in the wrong techncial section...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K