- #1
jfy4
- 649
- 3
Hi,
I ran this by my friend awhile ago and I'm not sure how to feel about it still... Consider the following:
We know
[tex]
\nabla_\alpha G^{\alpha\beta}=0\implies \partial_\alpha G^{\alpha\beta}+\Gamma^{\beta}_{\gamma\delta}G^{ \gamma \delta}+\Gamma^{\delta}_{\delta\gamma}G^{ \gamma \beta}=0
[/tex]
Then is it possible to take as the definition of the divergence of the SEM as
[tex]
\partial_\alpha T^{\alpha\beta}=-(\Gamma^{\beta}_{\gamma\delta}G^{\gamma\delta}+ \Gamma^{\delta}_{\delta\gamma}G^{\gamma\beta})?
[/tex]
This seems so to me since if I were clairvoyant I would know that [itex]\mathbf{G}=\mathbf{T}[/itex]. Anyways, given that, I have
[tex]
\partial_{\alpha}G^{\alpha\beta}-\partial_{\alpha}T^{\alpha\beta}=\partial_{\alpha}(G^{\alpha\beta}-T^{\alpha\beta})=0
[/tex]
Now, is there a way to know if the divergence of something being zero implies that the something is zero in order to justify the final step [itex]\mathbf{G}=\mathbf{T}[/itex]?
Thanks,
I ran this by my friend awhile ago and I'm not sure how to feel about it still... Consider the following:
We know
[tex]
\nabla_\alpha G^{\alpha\beta}=0\implies \partial_\alpha G^{\alpha\beta}+\Gamma^{\beta}_{\gamma\delta}G^{ \gamma \delta}+\Gamma^{\delta}_{\delta\gamma}G^{ \gamma \beta}=0
[/tex]
Then is it possible to take as the definition of the divergence of the SEM as
[tex]
\partial_\alpha T^{\alpha\beta}=-(\Gamma^{\beta}_{\gamma\delta}G^{\gamma\delta}+ \Gamma^{\delta}_{\delta\gamma}G^{\gamma\beta})?
[/tex]
This seems so to me since if I were clairvoyant I would know that [itex]\mathbf{G}=\mathbf{T}[/itex]. Anyways, given that, I have
[tex]
\partial_{\alpha}G^{\alpha\beta}-\partial_{\alpha}T^{\alpha\beta}=\partial_{\alpha}(G^{\alpha\beta}-T^{\alpha\beta})=0
[/tex]
Now, is there a way to know if the divergence of something being zero implies that the something is zero in order to justify the final step [itex]\mathbf{G}=\mathbf{T}[/itex]?
Thanks,