Derivation of Einstein Field Equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the derivation of the Einstein Field Equations as presented in Sean M. Carroll's book "Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity." Participants explore the steps involved in contracting the equation involving the Ricci tensor and the stress-energy tensor, specifically addressing a participant's confusion regarding the results of this contraction.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the contraction of the equation R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} Rg_{\mu\nu}=\kappa T_{\mu\nu} and arrives at an incorrect result of R=2\kappa T.
  • Another participant points out that the contraction of g_{\mu\nu}g^{\mu\nu} equals 4, which is relevant to the derivation.
  • A different participant provides a step-by-step contraction leading to R - 2R = -R = \kappa T, indicating a correction to the initial misunderstanding.
  • Several participants acknowledge having made similar mistakes in understanding the contraction process and emphasize the importance of recognizing the diagonal elements of the metric tensor.
  • One participant suggests that Carroll's explanation could be clearer and mentions the existence of errata in the book that could lead to confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the nature of the confusion regarding the contraction process and the importance of understanding the metric tensor's properties. However, there is no consensus on the clarity of Carroll's presentation or the existence of errors in the text.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential for confusion due to the diagonal elements of the metric tensor and the presence of errata in Carroll's book, which may affect the understanding of the derivation.

tensor33
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
I'm reading Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity by Sean M. Carrol and in the chapter on gravitation, he derives the Einstein Field Equations. Here is the part I don't get. He starts with the equation R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} Rg_{\mu\nu}=\kappa T_{\mu\nu} Wher R_{\mu\nu} is the Ricci tensor, \kappa is some constant, and T_{\mu\nu} is the stress-energy tensor. Then he sates that by contracting both sides it becomes,R=-\kappa T where R=R_{\mu\nu}g^{\mu\nu} and T=T_{\mu\nu}g^{\mu\nu}. I don't see how he came to this answer. When I tried to work it out myself I got R=2\kappa T This obviously isn't the right answer, and I can't see what I'm missing. I'm drawing a blank here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
g_{\mu\nu}g^{\mu\nu}=4
 
g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu } - \frac{1}{2}Rg^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu } = R - \frac{1}{2}R\delta ^{\mu }_{\mu } = R - 2R = - R = \kappa T
EDIT: robphy beat me to it =D
 
I made the same mistake as you the first time I did it. Although g^\mu_\nu has diagonal *elements* that all equal 1, that doesn't mean you can replace it with 1 when you contract. It has four diagonal elements, so g^\mu_\mu=4.
 
Oh! It all makes sense now! I wish Carroll would've been a little more explicit in that step, it would've saved me a lot of confusion. Oh well. At least I get it now, thanks to all those who replied.
 
tensor33 said:
Oh! It all makes sense now! I wish Carroll would've been a little more explicit in that step, it would've saved me a lot of confusion. Oh well. At least I get it now, thanks to all those who replied.
In the future however, make sure you check his errata page because the book does have a ton of errata and in the event that he did make a typo, you don't want to rip your hair out when your result is correct but the thing in the book says something else.
 
WannabeNewton said:
In the future however, make sure you check his errata page because the book does have a ton of errata and in the event that he did make a typo, you don't want to rip your hair out when your result is correct but the thing in the book says something else.

Thanks I'll make sure to keep that in mind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
943
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K