General Relativity - Index Notation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in general relativity involving matrix elements and eigenvectors. Participants are tasked with finding the matrix element \( M_{ij} \), demonstrating that \( x^j \) is an eigenvector of \( M_{ij} \), and showing that any vector orthogonal to \( x^j \) is also an eigenvector.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the calculation of the matrix element \( M_{ij} \) and question the correctness of the original expressions provided. There are discussions about the application of derivatives and the use of Kronecker delta in the context of the problem.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing examination of the calculations related to \( M_{ij} \). Some participants suggest clarifications and corrections to the original attempts, while others are working through the implications of these corrections. Guidance has been offered regarding the use of explicit expressions and the treatment of indices.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the complexities of index notation and the implications of assumptions made in the problem setup. There is a recognition of potential typos and the need for careful differentiation in the calculations.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement



(a) Find matrix element ##M_{ij}##
(b) Show that ##x^j## is an eigenvector of ##M_{ij}##
(c) Show any vector orthogonal to ##x^j## is also an eigenvector of ##M_{ij}##
4tufjc.png

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Part(a)
[/B]
\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial x^i x^j} = -\frac{2GM_i}{(x^i)^3} \delta_{ij}Part(b)

M_{ij}x_j = \frac{-2GM_i}{(x^i)^2}

How do I show it is an eigenvector? It is clearly not..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi. What you obtain in (a) is wrong: the double derivative should give you two terms, the denominator should be a power of r and the index on M is probably a typo...
 
Goddar said:
Hi. What you obtain in (a) is wrong: the double derivative should give you two terms, the denominator should be a power of r and the index on M is probably a typo...
Sorry I don't quite follow..
 
Can you detail your calculation of Mij so maybe i can tell you what goes wrong?
 
Goddar said:
Can you detail your calculation of Mij so maybe i can tell you what goes wrong?

Part(a)
M_{ij} = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^j x^i} GM(x^i x^i)^{-\frac{1}{2}} = -GM \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j} x^i (x^i x^i)^{-\frac{3}{2}} = 3GMx^i x^j (x^i x^i)^{-\frac{5}{2}} \delta_{ij}

Part (b)

M_{ij} x^j = 3GMx^i (x^j)^2 (x^i x^i)^{-\frac{5}{2}} \delta_{ij} = 3GM (x^i x^i)^{-2}
 
Ok. First i would recommend you actually expand r in terms of x,y and z instead of using summation convention: it will be less confusing and you'll see what's going on more clearly.
But if you want to use it, you have to pick a different index for your denominator (not i or j)!
Then you will see that in the second derivative you wrongfully assigned a Kronecker delta to 3GMxixj/r5,
while you're forgetting a term for the case where i = j (so that this second term does come with a Kronecker delta!).
If you do all that you'll see how part (b) comes out as expected.
 
Goddar said:
Ok. First i would recommend you actually expand r in terms of x,y and z instead of using summation convention: it will be less confusing and you'll see what's going on more clearly.
But if you want to use it, you have to pick a different index for your denominator (not i or j)!
Then you will see that in the second derivative you wrongfully assigned a Kronecker delta to 3GMxixj/r5,
while you're forgetting a term for the case where i = j (so that this second term does come with a Kronecker delta!).
If you do all that you'll see how part (b) comes out as expected.
Oh I think I got it now. I should have used a dummy index for ##r##.

Part(a)

<br /> M_{ij} = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^j x^i} GM(x^l x^l)^{-\frac{1}{2}} = -GM \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j} x^i (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} = -GM \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial x^i} x^i (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j \neq i}} x^i (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} \right]<br />

<br /> M_{ij} = -GM \left[ (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} -3 (x^i)^2 (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{5}{2}} -3 x^i x^j (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{5}{2}} \delta_{ij} \right]<br />

Part (b)

<br /> M_{ij} x^j = GM \left[ x^j (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} -3 x^j (x^i)^2 (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{5}{2}} -3 x^i (x^j)^2 (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{5}{2}} \delta_{ij} \right]<br />

Using the kronecker delta,
<br /> M_{ij} x^j = GM (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} x^j<br />
 
Last edited:
You're getting there but there's still a mistake in your second derivative (again it would probably appear more clearly if you used explicit expressions of x,y,z):
1 - you obtain 3 terms while there should be only two because the xj in the denominator gets a derivative whether or not j = i
2 - the first term you obtain should be the one carrying a Kronecker delta since it is the one corresponding solely to the case where j = i
 
Goddar said:
You're getting there but there's still a mistake in your second derivative (again it would probably appear more clearly if you used explicit expressions of x,y,z):
1 - you obtain 3 terms while there should be only two because the xj in the denominator gets a derivative whether or not j = i
2 - the first term you obtain should be the one carrying a Kronecker delta since it is the one corresponding solely to the case where j = i

You're right, I'm complicating things. Here's what it should be:

Part(a)

<br /> M_{ij} = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^j x^i} GM(x^l x^l)^{-\frac{1}{2}} = -GM \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j} x^i (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} = -GM \left[ \delta_{ij}(x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} -3 x^j x^i (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{5}{2}}\right]<br />

Part (b)

<br /> M_{ij} x^j = -GM \left[ \delta_{ij} x^j (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} -3 (x^j x^j) x^i (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{5}{2}} \right] = -GM \left[ \delta_{ij} x^j (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} -3 x^i (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} \right] = 2 GM (x^l x^l)^{-\frac{3}{2}} x^j<br />
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Yep. Now you can express again the denominator as r-3, so it's obvious that xj is an eigenvector...
 
  • #11
Goddar said:
Yep. Now you can express again the denominator as r-3, so it's obvious that xj is an eigenvector...
Thanks man! I will try out the remaining parts and update it here
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K