Directional covariant derivative

snoopies622
Messages
852
Reaction score
29
Is this correct?

<br /> <br /> \nabla _{\vec{p}} \vec{p} = (\nabla_a \vec{p} ) p^a<br /> <br /> =&lt; (\nabla_a p^0 ) p^a, (\nabla_a p^1 ) p^a , (\nabla_a p^2 ) p^a, (\nabla_a p^3 ) p^a &gt;<br /> <br />

(where the a's are summed from 0 to 3)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi again, atyy. Perhaps I should re-formulate; I think this is right but I was hoping for confirmation:

The covariant derivative of a type (a,b) tensor is a type (a,b+1) tensor, but the directional covariant derivative is still type (a,b), since one takes the inner product of the covariant derivative and the directional vector, thereby losing the extra lower rank.

I was wondering about this because somewhere in Schutz's First Course he writes the geodesic equation simply as \nabla _{\vec{p}} \vec{p} = 0, and I wasn't certain what \nabla _{\vec{p}} \vec{p} meant.
 
I think it's something like this.

Expand u in basis vectors (linearity):
<br /> \nabla _{\bold{u}} \bold{v} <br /> = \nabla _{{u^i}\bold{e_i}} \bold{v} <br /> ={u^i} \nabla _{i} \bold{v}<br />

Expand v in basis vectors (product rule or Leibniz property):
<br /> {u^i} \nabla _{i} \bold{v}<br /> ={u^i} \nabla _{i} v^j\bold{e_j}<br /> ={u^i} (v^j\nabla _{i} \bold{e_j}+\bold{e_j}\nabla _{i} v^j})<br />

Use definition of Christoffel symbols and covariant derivative of a scalar field:
<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \{}{u^i} (v^j\nabla _{i} \bold{e_j}+\bold{e_j}\nabla _{i} v^j}) \\<br /> &amp;={u^i} (v^j\Gamma^{k}_{ij} \bold{e_k}+\bold{e_j}{\frac {\partial v^j}{\partial x_i}}) \\<br /> &amp;=({u^i}v^j\Gamma^{k}_{ij} \bold{e_k}+{u^i}\bold{e_j}{\frac {\partial v^j}{\partial x_i}}) \\<br /> &amp;=({u^i}v^j\Gamma^{k}_{ij} \bold{e_k}+{u^i}\bold{e_k}{\frac {\partial v^k}{\partial x_i}}) \\<br /> &amp;=({u^i}v^j\Gamma^{k}_{ij} \bold+{u^i}{\frac {\partial v^k}{\partial x_i}}){\bold{e_k}}<br /> \end{equation*}<br /> \end{split}<br />

For Schutz's equation, let the unknown coordinates of the curve be x_i=x_i(\tau).

Set u^i=v^i=({\frac {dx(\tau)}{d\tau}})^i={\frac {dx{_i}(\tau)}{d\tau}} as the tangent vector along the curve.

For a geodesic, set the covariant derivative of the tangent vector along the curve to zero (ie. no acceleration):
{\frac {dx{_i}}{d\tau}}{\frac {dx{_j}}{d\tau}}\Gamma^{k}_{ij} \bold+{\frac {dx{_i}}{d\tau}}({\frac {d^2x{_k}}{d\tau^2}}{\frac {d\tau}{dx{_i}}})}={\frac {dx{_i}}{d\tau}}{\frac {dx{_j}}{d\tau}}\Gamma^{k}_{ij} \bold+{\frac {d^2x{_k}}{d\tau^2}}}=0

We can also get the same differential equation by requiring the integrated proper time along the curve to be extremal. A given metric fixes the Christoffel symbols. Solving the differential equation will give you the coordinates of a geodesic x_i=x_i(\tau).
 
Need a day to process...
 
Thanks, atyy; I follow now. And it turns out that the relationship I was looking for is right here in Schutz's section 6.4, "Parallel-transport, geodesics and curvature":

<br /> <br /> \nabla _ {\vec U} \vec U = 0 \Rightarrow "in component notation" U^{\beta} U^{\alpha} _{;\beta}=...=0

I guess in general it pays to read page 166 before page 186.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top