Covariant derivative of coordinates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the covariant derivative of coordinates, specifically the expression for the covariant derivative of the coordinate functions and its implications in the context of tensor analysis. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and physical interpretation of this concept, questioning its validity and relevance in curved geometries.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an expression for the covariant derivative of coordinates, suggesting it can be manipulated to resemble a linear algebra problem, and questions its physical meaning.
  • Another participant argues that coordinates do not form vector fields in curved geometry, implying that taking their covariant derivatives lacks physical meaning and that the resulting expressions do not represent a (1,1) tensor.
  • A different participant acknowledges the possibility of a parametrized covariant derivative for quantities evolving on a curve, but expresses concern about the appropriateness of taking the derivative of coordinates.
  • Another reply emphasizes that the covariant derivative operator changes depending on whether it acts on vectors, tensors, or functions, asserting that the expression presented does not hold physical meaning due to the nature of the coordinates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and physical interpretation of the covariant derivative of coordinates. There is no consensus on whether the proposed expressions have meaningful physical implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations regarding the transformation properties of coordinates and the nature of the covariant derivative when applied to different mathematical objects, indicating unresolved assumptions about the context of the discussion.

jfy4
Messages
645
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I am familiar with the covariant derivative of the tangent vector to a path, \nabla_{\alpha}u^{\beta} and some interesting ways to use it. I am wondering about
<br /> \nabla_{\alpha}x^{\beta}=\frac{\partial x^\beta}{\partial x^\alpha}+\Gamma^{\beta}_{\alpha\gamma}x^{\gamma}=\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta}+\Gamma^{\beta}_{\alpha \gamma}x^{\gamma}<br />
Then if we let this equal some arbitrary (1,1)-tensor we can manipulate to get
<br /> \frac{d\tau}{dx^{\alpha}}\frac{dx^{\beta}}{d\tau}+\Gamma^{\beta}_{\alpha\gamma}x^{\gamma}=\Omega^{ \beta}_{\alpha}<br />
which can be rewritten as
<br /> (\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta} +\Gamma^{\beta}_{\alpha\gamma}x^{\gamma}-\Omega_{ \alpha}^{\beta})u^{\alpha}=J_{ \alpha}^{\beta}u^{\alpha}=0<br />
which looks like a classic homogeneous linear algebra problem (that's the simplification I made in the last equality, just aesthetic). Does this equation have a good physical meaning, or is this just non-sense?

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The covariant derivative applies to vector fields. As the coordinates do not form vector fields in a curved geometry, I don't believe taking their "covariant derivatives" will have any physical meaning. In the end, you don't have a (1,1) tensor since the x's are not vectors.

At the very best, I guess if you consider the coordinates to be functions (i.e. f(x)=x), then you have 4 separate one forms at the end, where the beta index merely labels which one form you have. In this case, the "contraction" with the Christoffel symbol is not kosher as the covariant derivative of a function is equal to the regular partial derivative.
 
okay, but I know one can take a parametrized covariant derivative, for quantities that evolve on a curve, x^{\alpha}(\tau), of the form
<br /> \frac{D}{D\tau}=\frac{d}{d\tau}+\Gamma^{\alpha}_{ \beta \gamma}u^{\gamma}<br />
like
<br /> \frac{DA^\alpha(\tau)}{D\tau}=\frac{dA^{\alpha}}{d\tau}+\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma}u^{\beta}A^{ \gamma}<br />
These quantities are not vector fields but are only defined on curves, like the spin of a particle. I'm also aware that x^{\alpha} does in general not transform covariantly, so I was worried about taking the derivative in the first place, which is why I asked the forum.

Thanks for your answer.
 
\frac{D}{D\tau}=\frac{d}{d\tau}+\Gamma^\alpha_{ \beta\gamma}u^\gamma only works if what that operator is acting on is a vector. If that operator is acting on a tensor, then the form of that operator will change. If that operator is acting on a function (e.g. f(x)=x), then the Christoffel symbol term is not there.

Essentially, \frac{D}{D\tau}=u^\gamma \nabla_\gamma. Remember that for a rank 2 tensor, the covariant derivative is \nabla_\gamma T^{\mu\nu}=\frac{d}{dx^\gamma}T^{\mu\nu}+\Gamma^ \mu_{\gamma\rho}T^{\rho\nu}+\Gamma^\nu_{\gamma\rho}T^{\mu\rho}, and this form changes depending on the rank of the tensor. Since your x is not a vector (but can only at best be thought of as a set of 4 functions...which aren't even scalars), I don't think your expression holds any physical meaning.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K