GR Lie Derivative of metric vanish <=> metric is independent

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



How to show that lie deriviaitve of metric vanish ##(L_v g)_{uv}=0## <=> metric is independent of this coordinate, for example if ##v=\partial_z## then ##g_{uv} ## is independent of ##z## (and vice versa)

2. Relevant equation

I am wanting to show this for the levi-civita symbol as the connection i.e. metric compatability were we have ## \nabla_{a}g^{uv} =0 ## so the first term of ##(L_v g)_{uv}=0## vanishes trivially.

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
##(L_ug)_{uv} = U^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}g_{uv}+g_{u\alpha}\nabla_vU^{\alpha}+g_{\alpha v}\nabla_u U^{\alpha}## (1)

If the metric is independent of some coordinate, e.g ##z## then we have ## \partial_z g_{ab} =0## but , assuming metric compatibility ##\nabla_{\alpha}g_{uv}=0## anyway, so there's no need to split it up into the partial and connection term, which seemed to me the most obvious way and only way I can see to substitute the information of metric independence of (say) ##z## into (1)

So we have ##(L_ug)_{uv} = g_{u\alpha}\nabla_vU^{\alpha}+g_{\alpha v}\nabla_u U^{\alpha}##, where there are no derivatives on the metric in these two terms, so I'm pretty stuck..

Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not so in general. You can have metric invariance along a vector which is not in one of the coordinate directions. The metric of an ordinary sphere is a example.
binbagsss said:
metric is independent of this coordinate
So, you should try to show that vanishing of the Lie derivative of the metric along a vector ##\Rightarrow## metric is invariant along that vector.
 
First of all, the Lie derivative does not involve the connection, so it's actually the case that:

(L_U g)_{\mu \nu} = U^\alpha \partial_\alpha g_{\mu \nu} + g_{\mu \alpha} \partial_\nu U^\alpha + g_{\alpha \nu} \partial_\mu U^\alpha

The first term doesn't vanish in general (although the corresponding expression involving the covariant derivative does: U^\alpha \nabla_\alpha g_{\mu \nu} = 0)

Now, let's look at the special case where U is a coordinate basis vector, e_\lambda, that means that U^\lambda = 1 and U^\alpha = 0 if \alpha \neq \lambda. So for this particular choice of U, \partial_\mu U^\alpha = \partial_\nu U^\alpha = 0. So we have:

(L_U g)_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\lambda g_{\mu \nu} + 0 + 0
 
  • Like
Likes binbagsss
stevendaryl said:
First of all, the Lie derivative does not involve the connection, so it's actually the case that:

(L_U g)_{\mu \nu} = U^\alpha \partial_\alpha g_{\mu \nu} + g_{\mu \alpha} \partial_\nu U^\alpha + g_{\alpha \nu} \partial_\mu U^\alpha

The first term doesn't vanish in general (although the corresponding expression involving the covariant derivative does: U^\alpha \nabla_\alpha g_{\mu \nu} = 0)

Now, let's look at the special case where U is a coordinate basis vector, e_\lambda, that means that U^\lambda = 1 and U^\alpha = 0 if \alpha \neq \lambda. So for this particular choice of U, \partial_\mu U^\alpha = \partial_\nu U^\alpha = 0. So we have:

(L_U g)_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\lambda g_{\mu \nu} + 0 + 0

perfect, thank you
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top