Derivation of gauge condition in linearized GR

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the gauge condition in linearized General Relativity (GR), specifically focusing on the treatment of perturbations of the Minkowski metric and the implications of gauge transformations on these perturbations. Participants explore the mathematical framework and notation used in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant explains the transformation of the perturbation \(\gamma_{ab}\) under an infinitesimal diffeomorphism and how this leads to the expression for \(\bar{\gamma'_{ab}}\).
  • Another participant questions the reasoning behind dropping the prime notation from \(\bar{\gamma'_{ab}}\) to \(\bar{\gamma_{ab}}\), seeking clarification on the implications of this step.
  • A different participant notes that the discussion relates to non-uniqueness of the gauge, referencing specific equations from a lecture note.
  • One participant asserts that the gauge condition in gravity is referred to as the Hilbert gauge, contrasting it with the Lorentz gauge used in electromagnetism, and discusses the terminology around the Lorenz condition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the notation and the implications of gauge transformations, indicating that there is no consensus on the reasoning for dropping the prime notation or the terminology used.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the mathematical justification for dropping the prime in the context of gauge transformations and the implications of this action on the interpretation of the perturbations.

WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
553
Hey there guys! So we know that in linearized GR we work with small perturbations \gamma _{ab} of the background flat minkowski metric. In deriving the linearized field equations the quantity \bar{\gamma _{ab}} = \gamma _{ab} - \frac{1}{2}\eta _{ab}\gamma is usually defined, where \gamma = \gamma ^{a}_{a}. Under the action of an infinitesimal diffeomorphism (generator of flow), \gamma _{ab} transforms as \gamma' _{ab} = \gamma _{ab} + \partial _{b}\xi _{a} + \partial _{a}\xi _{b} (this comes out of the lie derivative of the minkowski metric with respect to the flow generated by this vector field). This implies that \bar{\gamma' _{ab}} = \bar{\gamma _{ab}} + \partial _{b}\xi _{a} + \partial _{a}\xi _{b} - \eta _{ab}\partial^{c}\xi _{c}. Since we have the freedom to then fix the gauge by choosing some \xi ^{a}, we can take one satisfying \partial ^{b}\partial _{b}\xi _{a} = -\partial ^{b}\bar{\gamma _{ab}} which, after differentiating the expression for \bar{\gamma' _{ab}}, gives \partial^{b}\bar{\gamma' _{ab}} = 0. Apparently we can then conclude from this that \partial^{b}\bar{\gamma _{ab}} = 0 but why is that? Is it because in a background flat space - time we can regard \partial^{b}\bar{\gamma' _{ab}} = 0 as a covariant equation due to being able to treat \triangledown _{a} as \partial _{a} therefore, since \bar{\gamma '_{ab}}, \bar{\gamma _{ab}} are related by a diffeomorphism, the equation must remain invariant under the transformation \bar{\gamma '_{ab}}\rightarrow \bar{\gamma _{ab}} (in the context of GR)?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see the difference. You use the gauge transformation to put γab into the Hilbert gauge and then just drop the prime.
 
Hi Bill! Thanks for responding. My question is why are we allowed to drop the prime? Thanks again mate.
 
My question is why are we allowed to drop the prime?
It's just notation. Whether you call it γab or γ'ab or something else entirely, it represents the gravitational perturbation in the Hilbert gauge.

By the way, in gravity this gauge condition IS called the Hilbert gauge, not the "Lorentz gauge", which pertains to electromagnetism. And "Lorentz gauge" itself is incorrect. Quoting Wikipedia,
The Lorenz condition is named after Ludvig Lorenz. It is a Lorentz invariant condition, and is frequently called the "Lorentz condition" because of confusion with Hendrik Lorentz, after whom Lorentz covariance is named.
 
Thanks Bill and atyy!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K