Derivative of the metric tensor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the normal derivative of the metric tensor, specifically addressing potential inconsistencies in the reasoning presented by participants. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanations related to tensor calculus in the context of differential geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an equation for the normal derivative of the metric tensor and expresses confusion over the resulting relationship, questioning how to derive one equation from another.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial equation and provides a step-by-step manipulation to show how to arrive at the desired result, suggesting that the reasoning is straightforward.
  • A third participant offers an alternative approach using the properties of the metric tensor and its derivatives, leading to a similar conclusion but through a different method involving contraction.
  • Some participants express appreciation for the responses received, indicating that the clarifications were helpful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While some participants provide solutions and clarifications, there is no explicit consensus on the initial confusion regarding the equations. The discussion reflects differing approaches to the problem without resolving the underlying uncertainties.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various mathematical manipulations and assumptions about the properties of the metric tensor and its derivatives, which may not be universally accepted or fully detailed in the exchanges.

Santiago
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Could anybody help to spot the inconsistency in the following reasoning?

When calculating the normal derivative of the metric tensor I get:

[tex]\partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma} = g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + 2 \partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma},[/tex] (1)

which means that:

[tex]g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} = -\partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma}.[/tex] (2)

And I don't see how this could be.

That's how I get this result:

[tex] \partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma} = <br /> \partial_\mu (g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} g_{\lambda \gamma}) = <br /> g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + g^{\rho \lambda} g_{\lambda \gamma} \partial_\mu g^{\sigma \gamma} + g_{\lambda \gamma} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g^{\rho \lambda} = <br /> g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + \delta^\rho_\gamma \partial_\mu g^{\sigma \gamma} + \delta^\sigma_\lambda \partial_\mu g^{\rho \lambda} = [/tex]
[tex] = g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + 2 \partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma}.[/tex] (3)

Could anybody show how to get directly the right hand side of equation (2) from the left hand side, or show where the mistake in the equation (3) is?

Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Santiago said:
Could anybody help to spot the inconsistency in the following reasoning?

When calculating the normal derivative of the metric tensor I get:

[tex]\partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma} = g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + 2 \partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma},[/tex] (1)

which means that:

[tex]g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} = -\partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma}.[/tex] (2)

And I don't see how this could be.

That's how I get this result:

[tex] \partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma} = <br /> \partial_\mu (g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} g_{\lambda \gamma}) = <br /> g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + g^{\rho \lambda} g_{\lambda \gamma} \partial_\mu g^{\sigma \gamma} + g_{\lambda \gamma} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g^{\rho \lambda} = <br /> g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + \delta^\rho_\gamma \partial_\mu g^{\sigma \gamma} + \delta^\sigma_\lambda \partial_\mu g^{\rho \lambda} = [/tex]
[tex] = g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} + 2 \partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma}.[/tex] (3)

Could anybody show how to get directly the right hand side of equation (2) from the left hand side, or show where the mistake in the equation (3) is?

Thanks a lot.

Unless I've misunderstood something terribly obvious, it's trivial to get what you want. We know that

[tex]\partial_cg^{ab} = g^{ad}g^{be}\partial_cg_{de} + 2\partial_cg^{ab}[/tex]

Agreed? Now subtract [itex]2\partial_cg^{ab}[/itex] from both sides and you get

[tex]g^{ad}g^{be}\partial_cg_{de} = \partial_cg^{ab} - 2\partial_cg^{ab} = -\partial_cg^{ab}[/tex]

which is what you're looking for.
 
Santiago said:
Could anybody help to spot the inconsistency in the following reasoning?

When calculating the normal derivative of the metric tensor I get:



[tex]g^{\rho \lambda} g^{\sigma \gamma} \partial_\mu g_{\lambda \gamma} = -\partial_\mu g^{\rho \sigma}.[/tex] (2)

And I don't see how this could be.

[tex]g^{\mu \rho} g_{\nu \rho} = \delta^{\mu}_{\nu}[/tex]

[tex]\partial \left( g^{\mu \rho} g_{\nu \mu} \right) = 0[/tex]

thus

[tex]g^{\mu \rho} \partial g_{\nu \rho} = - g_{\nu \rho} \partial g^{\mu \rho}[/tex]

now contract with [itex]g^{\nu \sigma}[/itex], you get your result.

[tex]\delta^{\sigma}_{\rho} \partial g^{\mu \rho} = - g^{\nu \sigma} g^{\mu \rho} \partial g_{\nu \rho}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Thank you shoehorn and samalkhaiat for your replies, it helped a lot. Especially samalkhaiat. That's what I needed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
893
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K