Functional derivative of connection with respect to metric

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the functional derivative of a connection with respect to the metric in the context of differential geometry and tensor calculus. Participants explore the implications of this derivative in relation to tensor densities and the Christoffel symbols, examining whether it can be expressed solely in terms of geometrical objects.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the functional derivative of an integral involving a tensor density and the connection, suggesting it is non-zero due to the dependence of the Christoffel symbols on the metric.
  • Another participant proposes a specific form for the variation of the integral with respect to the metric tensor, indicating that the result will still be a tensor density.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the tensors involved, with a suggestion that certain terms may vanish if the tensors do not depend on the metric tensor.
  • One participant questions the simplification of terms in the expression, seeking clarification on why certain terms yield a specific result.
  • A later reply corrects a previous statement, indicating a typographical error regarding the use of derivatives.
  • Further clarification is sought on the equality of terms involving derivatives and functional derivatives, with a reference to the properties of the variation of the metric tensor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the simplification of terms and the conditions under which certain terms vanish. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific implications of the functional derivative and the nature of the tensors involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the expressions involve assumptions about the independence of certain tensors from the metric, and the discussion highlights the complexity of handling functional derivatives in this context.

paweld
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
I cannot work out the following functional derivative:
<br /> \frac{\delta}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \int d^4 x f^a_{\phantom{a}b} \nabla_a h^b<br />
Where f is a tensor density f= \sqrt{\det g} \tilde{f} (\tilde{f} is an ordinary tensor)
and should be consider as independent of g. In my opinion this is not 0
because the connection (namly Christoffel symbols) depend on metric. One can easily
express this derivative in terms of partial derivatives of metric in some coordinates.
But this expression is rather messy and doesn't look like a tensor. Is it possible to express
it using only geometrical objects (tensors, tensor densities, ...)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
paweld said:
I cannot work out the following functional derivative:
<br /> \frac{\delta}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \int d^4 x f^a_{\phantom{a}b} \nabla_a h^b<br />
Where f is a tensor density f= \sqrt{\det g} \tilde{f} (\tilde{f} is an ordinary tensor)
and should be consider as independent of g. In my opinion this is not 0
because the connection (namly Christoffel symbols) depend on metric. One can easily
express this derivative in terms of partial derivatives of metric in some coordinates.
But this expression is rather messy and doesn't look like a tensor. Is it possible to express
it using only geometrical objects (tensors, tensor densities, ...)?

You better take h to be \tilde{h} because I guess it is a tensor not weighted tensor (in agreement with your notation). Of course the result will still be a tensor density because the weight factor would by no means disappear in the end. In fact one can show that the best stance for the variation of this integral wrt metric tensor will be

<br /> \int d^4 x (\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}f^a_b\nabla_a \tilde{h}^b+\frac{\delta \tilde{f}^{\alpha a}}{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} \nabla_a h_{\alpha}+f^{\mu a} \nabla_a \tilde {h}^{\nu}+\frac{\delta [\nabla_a\tilde{h}^b]}{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} f^a_b),

where h is a tensor density. Here we have no idea what \tilde{h} and \tilde {f} are except their being tensor density. If they were given, we could decide on whether their variation wrt metric tensor would vanish or not! If they don't depend on the metric tensor, the second term apparently vanishes and the last and third terms give together

\int d^4 x f^{\mu a}\partial_a \tilde{h}^{\nu}

So the result will be

\int d^4 x (f^{\mu a}\partial_a \tilde{h} + \frac{1}{2} f^a_b\nabla_a \tilde {h}^b).

This is indeed a non-vanishing expression and the most reduced form of the initial integral.

AB
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot for answer.

I don't see why the third and fourth term give:
Altabeh said:
\int d^4 x f^{\mu a}\nabla_a h^{\nu}
(it implies that the fourth term is 0?)
 
paweld said:
Thanks a lot for answer.

I don't see why the third and fourth term give:

(it implies that the fourth term is 0?)

No it is just a typo! It must be the ordinary derivative!

AB
 
I still don't know why:
<br /> f^{\mu a} \nabla_a h^{\nu}+\frac{\delta [\nabla_a\tilde{h}^b]}{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} f^a_b<br /> = f^{\mu a} \partial_a h^{\nu}<br />
Could you give some hints why the above equality holds.
 
paweld said:
I still don't know why:
<br /> f^{\mu a} \nabla_a h^{\nu}+\frac{\delta [\nabla_a\tilde{h}^b]}{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} f^a_b<br /> = f^{\mu a} \partial_a h^{\nu}<br />
Could you give some hints why the above equality holds.

This only holds when one knows that

\frac{\delta g_{\lambda a} }{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} =\delta ^{\mu}_{\lambda}}\delta ^{\nu}_{a}}

and thus

\frac{\delta \partial_{\kappa}g_{\lambda \alpha } }{\delta g_{\mu \nu}} =\partial_{\kappa}(\delta ^{\mu}_{\lambda}}\delta ^{\nu}_{\alpha}})=0.

Are you now able to derive the equation or shall I?

AB
 
Yes, it's now quite simple. Thanks for help once more.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K