General Relativity: Contracting Indices

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter direct99
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Indices
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical manipulation of equations in general relativity, specifically focusing on the contraction of indices in the context of two given equations. Participants explore the steps required to derive one equation from another and examine the implications of contracting indices in the equations presented.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of deriving equation (2) from equation (1) through index contraction, expressing confusion over the process.
  • Another participant suggests breaking the problem into parts, focusing first on terms involving derivatives of the metric and inviting collaboration on the calculations.
  • A participant shares their results from contracting the equations but struggles to see how their results align with equation (2).
  • Concerns are raised about the mathematical validity of combining terms with different upper indices, prompting a discussion on renaming indices before subtraction.
  • There is a proposal to rename indices in the expressions to ensure proper mathematical form, leading to a question about equivalence to a different expression involving derivatives of the metric.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the steps taken to derive equation (2) from equation (1). There is no consensus on the validity of the manipulations or the equivalence of the expressions discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential issues with the mathematical expressions, including the need for consistent index naming and the implications of summing over indices. The discussion highlights the complexity of manipulating tensor equations in general relativity.

direct99
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I was reading a book about general relativity and I came across these two equations

$$ \begin{align}
\mathrm{g}^{\mu\nu}_{,\rho}+
\mathrm{g}^{\sigma\nu}{\Gamma}^{\mu}_{\sigma\rho}+
\mathrm{g}^{\mu\sigma}{\Gamma}^{\nu}_{\rho\sigma}
-\frac{1}{2}(
{\Gamma}^{\sigma}_{\sigma}+{{\Gamma}^{\sigma}_{\sigma\rho}}
)
\mathrm{g}^{\mu\nu}
&=0,
\tag1
\\
\mathrm{g}^{[\mu\nu]}_{,\nu}
-\frac{1}{2}(
{\Gamma}^{\rho}_{\rho\nu}+{\Gamma}^{\rho}_{\nu\rho}
)
\mathrm{g}^{(\mu\nu)}
&=0,
\tag2
\end{align}
$$

and it says that by contracting equation (1) once with respect to ($\mu,\rho$), then with respect to ($\nu,\rho$), then subtracting the resulting equations we can get equation (2), however I can't see how that's possible.
Also, This connection is not symmetric with respect to the lower Indices
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It breaks down into two parts, one part for the terms with only the derivatives of the metric, and one for the terms that involve the metric contracted with the Christoffel symbols. I did the first part and it worked out. Want to try that part and post what you get? Then we could move on to the second part. Remember that when an index is summed over, you're free to rename it to whatever you like.
 
Well, when contracting with respect to μ and ρ I get:
$$
-\frac{1}{2} g^{\rho \nu } {\Gamma} _{a\rho}^{a}-\frac{1}{2} g^{\rho
\nu} \Gamma _{\rho a}^{a}+g^{a\nu} \Gamma _{a\rho}^{\rho}+g^{\rho a} \Gamma _{\rho a}^{\nu}+g_{,\rho}^{\rho\nu}=0
$$
and when contracting with respect to nu and ρ I get:
$$
-\frac{1}{2} g^{\mu \rho } \Gamma _{a\rho}^a-\frac{1}{2} g^{\mu
\rho} \Gamma _{\rho a}^a+g_{}^{a\rho } \Gamma _{a\rho}^{\mu }+g^{\mu a} \Gamma _{\rho a}^{\rho
}+g_{,\rho }^{\mu \rho }=0
$$
when subtracting these two equations I get:
$$
\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\mu \rho } \Gamma _{a\rho }^a-\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\rho
\nu } \Gamma _{a\rho }^a+\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\mu \rho } \Gamma
_{\rho a}^a-\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\rho \nu } \Gamma _{\rho
a}^a+g_{}^{a\nu } \Gamma _{a\rho }^{\rho
}-g_{}^{a\rho } \Gamma _{a\rho }^{\mu }-g_{}^{\mu a}
\Gamma _{\rho a}^{\rho }+g_{}^{\rho a} \Gamma _{\rho
a}^{\nu }-g_{,\rho }^{\mu \rho }+g_{,\rho }^{\rho \nu }=0
$$
I can't see how this is equal to equation (2).
 
Last edited:
How to get equation (2) from

$$
\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\mu \rho } \Gamma _{a\rho }^a-\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\rho
\nu } \Gamma _{a\rho }^a+\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\mu \rho } \Gamma
_{\rho a}^a-\frac{1}{2} g_{}^{\rho \nu } \Gamma _{\rho
a}^a+g_{}^{a\nu } \Gamma _{a\rho }^{\rho
}-g_{}^{a\rho } \Gamma _{a\rho }^{\mu }-g_{}^{\mu a}
\Gamma _{\rho a}^{\rho }+g_{}^{\rho a} \Gamma _{\rho
a}^{\nu }-g_{,\rho }^{\mu \rho }+g_{,\rho }^{\rho \nu }=0
$$
 
For now let's concentrate on the terms that have derivatives of the metric in them. The way you've done it, you end up with something ungrammatical. In your expression

$$
-g_{,\rho }^{\mu \rho }+g_{,\rho }^{\rho \nu }=0
$$

you have a term with an upper μ index and a term with an upper ν index. You can't add terms that are written in this way. This tells you that you should rename your ρ indices before doing the subtraction.
 
bcrowell said:
For now let's concentrate on the terms that have derivatives of the metric in them. The way you've done it, you end up with something ungrammatical. In your expression

$$
-g_{,\rho }^{\mu \rho }+g_{,\rho }^{\rho \nu }=0
$$

you have a term with an upper μ index and a term with an upper ν index. You can't add terms that are written in this way. This tells you that you should rename your ρ indices before doing the subtraction.

so are you saying that

$$
-g_{,\rho }^{\mu \rho }+g_{,\rho }^{\rho \nu }=0
$$
should be something like
$$
-g_{,\sigma }^{\mu \sigma }+g_{,\rho }^{\rho \nu }=0
$$
If so does this mean that its equivalent to
$$
g_{,\nu }^{[\mu \nu ]}=0
$$
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
941
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K