Deriving Einstein tensor, Riemmann tensor step

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Einstein tensor from the Riemann tensor, focusing on the mathematical steps involved in expanding and contracting tensor expressions. Participants explore various methods and clarify their understanding of tensor notation and operations within the context of general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests factoring out \(\delta(g^{\mu\nu})\) terms from the varied action and expanding the Riemann tensor \(R_{\mu \nu}\) to \(R^{\rho}_{\mu \nu p}\) before contracting it back.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the expression \((g^{\alpha\sigma}g_{\alpha \rho})(g_{\alpha\sigma}g^{\alpha\rho}) = 16\) and seeks clarification on the reasoning behind it.
  • There is a discussion about whether one needs to contract the Riemann tensor when relating \(R_{\alpha \beta}\) to \(R^{\rho}_{\alpha \beta \sigma}\).
  • Participants express confusion about the correct method for contracting the Riemann tensor to obtain \(R_{\mu\nu}\) and discuss the implications of repeated indices in tensor notation.
  • One participant shares a detailed expression involving variations of the action, prompting further inquiries about its correctness and relevance to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding tensor operations and notation, with some agreeing on certain mathematical expressions while others challenge or seek clarification on them. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the correct approach to derive the Einstein tensor.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings related to tensor notation and operations, indicating that some may lack formal training in the subject, which could affect their interpretations and methods.

pleasehelpmeno
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Hi i have been following Hobson in their attempt to derive the einstein tensor, I have split the varied action into three terms and want to factor out \delta(g^{\mu\nu}) terms.

The Riemann tensor R_{\mu \nu} must be expanded to R^{\rho}_{\mu \nu p} and then contracted back to the original form. To do this should one simply multiply by (g^{\alpha\sigma}g_{\alpha \rho})(g_{\alpha\sigma}g^{\alpha\rho} ) and expand with the first bracket and then contract down with the second?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pleasehelpmeno said:
simply multiply by (g^{\alpha\sigma}g_{\alpha \rho})(g_{\alpha\sigma}g^{\alpha\rho} )

(g^{\alpha\sigma}g_{\alpha \rho})(g_{\alpha\sigma}g^{\alpha\rho} ) = 16
 
mmm, how can one expand R_{\mu\nu} then? Does one have to multiply by eta's?
 
First, why does

(g^{\alpha\sigma}g_{\alpha \rho})(g_{\alpha\sigma}g^{\alpha\rho} ) = 16?

Can you be more specific? I have Hobson et al.
 
Ok well because it is 4x4 isn't it,, each g^{}g_{} will be a kronecker delta = 4 or 0, I ma just finding the page number
 
It is on page 540
 
perhaps i am being thick is R_{\alpha \beta}=R^{\rho}_{\alpha \beta \sigma} so that then one wouldn't need to contract it?

Do you know how to write tensors in latex so that there is say a spacing between top and bottom?
 
(gασgαρ)(gασgαρ) = (δσρ)(δσρ) = δσσ = 4

(Of course the original expression is invalid since it contains four α's, but I'm assuming...)
 
Is my last post about Riemann tensors correct?
 
  • #10
pleasehelpmeno said:
perhaps i am being thick is R_{\alpha \beta}=R^{\rho}_{\alpha \beta \sigma} so that then one wouldn't need to contract it?

Do you know how to write tensors in latex so that there is say a spacing between top and bottom?
Like this ?

R_{\alpha \beta}\ne{R^{\rho}}_{\alpha \beta \sigma}
R_{\alpha \beta}={R^{\sigma}}_{\alpha\sigma \beta }
 
  • #11
Mentz114 said:
Like this ?

R_{\alpha \beta}\ne{R^{\rho}}_{\alpha \beta \sigma}
R_{\alpha \beta}={R^{\sigma}}_{\alpha\sigma \beta }
Or like this ##R^\rho{}_{\alpha\beta\sigma}##.
 
  • #12
pleasehelpmeno said:
perhaps i am being thick is R_{\alpha \beta}=R^{\rho}_{\alpha \beta \sigma} so that then one wouldn't need to contract it?
The numbers could be equal, but the tensors can't be.
 
  • #13
Fredrik said:
Or like this ##R^\rho{}_{\alpha\beta\sigma}##.
Or using UTF, like this: Rραβσ.
 
  • #14
Bill_K said:
(Of course the original expression is invalid since it contains four α's, but I'm assuming...)

Yikes, my eyes skimmed right over the illegal expression. :redface: I immediately read it as

g^{\alpha\sigma}g_{\alpha \rho}g_{\alpha\sigma}g^{\alpha\rho} = (g^{\alpha\sigma} g_{\alpha\sigma}) (g_{\alpha \rho} g^{\alpha\rho} ) = 4 \times 4 = 16
pleasehelpmeno said:
It is on page 540

Sorry, I still don't know what you are asking. I think you need to practise index gymnastics.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I am confused can you explain how to turn R^{\sigma}_{\mu\nu\rho} \mbox{ to } R_{\mu\nu} by contraction, I thought that my method was correct but clearly not, I am self taught so there are some things that i have missed.
 
  • #16
pleasehelpmeno said:
I am confused can you explain how to turn R^{\sigma}_{\mu\nu\rho} \mbox{ to } R_{\mu\nu} by contraction, I thought that my method was correct but clearly not, I am self taught so there are some things that i have missed.
Wikipedia defines ##R_{\mu\nu}## by ##R_{\mu\nu} = {R^\rho}_{\mu\rho\nu}##. You understand that repeated indices imply summation, right?
 
  • #17
Fredrik said:
Wikipedia defines ##R_{\mu\nu}## by ##R_{\mu\nu} = {R^\rho}_{\mu\rho\nu}##. You understand that repeated indices imply summation, right?

The text that pleasehelpmeno is using, Hobson et al, uses ##R_{\mu\nu} = {R^\rho}_{\mu\nu\rho}##.
 
  • #18
<br /> \delta s = \delta \int d^4 x \sqrt{g} R = \int d^4 x \delta (\sqrt{g} R_{\mu\nu}g^{\mu\nu})<br /> = \int d^4 x \left[ (\delta\sqrt{g})R + \sqrt{g}(\delta R_{\mu\nu})g^{\mu\nu} + \sqrt{g}R_{\mu\nu}(\delta g^{\mu\nu}) \right]<br />
does this look what you have to start with?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
719
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
942
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K