Covariant Derivative Homework: Solve ∇_c ({∂}_b X^a)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the covariant derivative ∇_{c} ({∂}_b X^a) and whether to treat it as a one or two-index object. The key equations for covariant derivatives are provided, and there is uncertainty about how to apply them to the expression involving the partial derivative. The contributor suggests treating {∂}_b X^a as a two-index tensor, leading to the application of the second formula for covariant derivatives. Ultimately, clarification is sought on the correct approach, with a consensus leaning towards treating it as a two-index object. The resolution indicates that the second formula should be used for the calculation.
MattRob
Messages
208
Reaction score
29

Homework Statement


Take the Covariant Derivative

∇_{c} ({∂}_b X^a)

Homework Equations



∇_{c} (X^a) = ∂_c X^a + Γ_{bc}^a X^b
∇_{c} (X^a_b) = ∂_c X^a_b + Γ_{dc}^a X^d_b - Γ^d_{bc} X^a_d

The Attempt at a Solution



Looking straight at
∇_{c} ({∂}_b X^a)
I'm seeing two indices. However, the b is nothing more than a reference to the derivative with respect to what, so I'm not sure whether this counts as a one or two-index object. Namely, do I solve it as

∇_{c} ({∂}_b X^a) = ∂_c {∂}_b X^a + Γ_{dc}^a {∂}_b X^d

since the index in the partial differential operator isn't the same as an index on a tensor, or is it?

So I'm thinking since the indices merely indicate you're working with a variety of objects (x^a = k => x^1 = k, x^2 = k, x^3 = k, ...), then the index on the differential operator should be treated the same, so I can treat {∂}_b X^a as a two-index tensor T^a_b = {∂}_b X^a

∇_{c} ({∂}_b X^a) = ∂_c {∂}_b X^a + Γ_{dc}^a {∂}_b X^d - Γ^d_{bc} {∂}_d X^a

So is it the latter case, former, or something else entirely?

I suppose I have every reason to think it should be the latter case, but I guess I'm just uncertain and want some clarification.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Treat it as a 2-index object.
 
  • Like
Likes MattRob
strangerep said:
Treat it as a 2-index object.
Second formula, then?

Thanks!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top