I Equations Using Comma-Goto-Semicolon Rule in Curved Spacetime

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Haorong Wu
  • Start date Start date
Haorong Wu
Messages
417
Reaction score
90
TL;DR Summary
What conditions should a physical equation satisfy so that the comma-goto-semicolon rule can be applied to it?
Recently, I am considering the wave equations of a light beam in curved spacetime. Here I have two approaches. Both start from the Helmholtz equation ##\psi^{,\mu}_{~~,\mu}=\eta^{\mu\nu}\psi_{,\mu,\nu}=0## in the Minkowski spacetime, and ##\psi## is assumed to be ##T(x,y,z)e^{ik(z-t)}##.

In the first approach, I could impose the paraxial approximation on the Helmholtz equation yielding the scalar wave equation ##2ik T_{,3}=\eta^{ij}T_{,i,j} ## where ##i## and ## j## run in the spatial coordinates. Then I write its counterpart in curved spacetime according to the comma-goto-semicolon rule yielding ##2ik T_{;3}=g^{ij}T_{;i;j} .##

In the other approach, I would first use the comma-goto-semicolon rule on the Helmholtz equation to have ##g^{\mu\nu}\psi_{;\mu;\nu}=0##. Then I express the covariant derivative by partial derivative. Along the process, the paraxial approximation is used to eliminate ##T_{,3,3}## term.

Now if I subscribe some metric to these two results, I will have inconsistent equations. In the second approach, ##g^{33}\psi_{;3;3}##, which does not appear in the first approach, will introduce some new terms. I think the second approach is correct since the Helmholtz equation is more symmetric than the scalar wave equation. This makes me wonder what condition should a equation satisfy so that I could use the comma-goto-semicolon rule to turn it into a covariant form?

BTW, when I write covariant derivative, should I write ##T(x,y,z)_{,i}## or ##T_{,i}(x,y,z)##? Also, if there are two covariant derivatives, should I write ##T_{;i;j}## or ##T_{;ij}##?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Haorong Wu said:
Also, if there are two covariant derivatives, should I write T;i;j or T;ij?
I observe ##:i:j## is used e.g. ##T_{:i:j}## in Dirac's text I have.
 
The "comma-to-semicolon"/##\partial##-to-##\nabla## rule is not always clear-cut. To give another example, consider the Maxwell equation ##\partial_{\mu} F^{\mu \nu} = 4\pi j^{\nu}##, which in terms of the vector potential reads\begin{align*}
\partial_{\mu} \partial^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \partial_{\mu} \partial^{\nu} A^{\mu} &= 4\pi j^{\nu} \ \ \ (\dagger) \\ \overset{\mathrm{curved \ spacetime}}{\implies} \nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\nu} A^{\mu} &= 4\pi j^{\nu} \ \ \ (\mathrm{a})
\end{align*}On the other hand, since ##\partial_{\mu} \partial^{\nu} = \partial^{\nu} \partial_{\mu}## then one can re-write ##(\dagger)## as\begin{align*}
\partial_{\mu} \partial^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \partial^{\nu} \partial_{\mu} A^{\mu} &= 4\pi j^{\nu} \\ \overset{\mathrm{curved \ spacetime}}{\implies} \nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \nabla^{\nu} \nabla_{\mu} A^{\mu} &= 4\pi j^{\nu} \ \ \ (\mathrm{b})
\end{align*}If one defines a "curvature" operator ##\nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\nu} - \nabla^{\nu} \nabla_{\mu} \equiv {R^{\nu}}_{\mu}## then one can re-write this last equation as\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\nu} A^{\mu} + {R^{\nu}}_{\mu} A^{\mu} &= 4\pi j^{\nu} \ \ \ (\mathrm{c})
\end{align*}The equations ##(\mathrm{a})## and ##(\mathrm{c})## differ by this term ##{R^{\nu}}_{\mu} A^{\mu}##.
 
  • Like
Likes Haorong Wu and vanhees71
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top