How Do Killing Vectors Represent Spacetime Symmetries in Stephani's Relativity?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Killing vectors and their representation of spacetime symmetries as presented in Stephani's "Relativity". Participants are examining the Killing equations and the implications of their notation and differentiation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the notation used in the Killing equations and its implications for differentiation. There is a discussion about whether the equations represent second derivatives and how the indices can be permuted. Some are exploring the conditions under which derivatives commute.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering different interpretations of the equations and questioning the assumptions behind the notation. Some guidance has been provided regarding the commutation of derivatives in flat space, but no consensus has been reached on the implications of the Killing equations.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the notation used in the equations and the assumptions about the nature of the spacetime being discussed, particularly concerning torsion and the conditions under which the Killing vectors are defined.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
In Stephani's "Relativity", section 33.3, equation (33.9), he has the Killing equations for cartesian coordinates as

[tex]\xi_{a,b}+\xi_{b,a}=0[/tex]

From there he says upon differentiation, you can get the following three equations

[tex]\xi_{a,bc}+\xi_{b,ac}=0[/tex]
[tex]\xi_{b,ca}+\xi_{c,ba}=0[/tex]
[tex]\xi_{c,ab}+\xi_{a,cb}=0[/tex]

Now, I'm not use to the ,; notation, but doesn't the first equation mean

[tex]\partial_b \xi_a + \partial_a \xi_b=0[/tex]?

If so, I don't understand the other 3 equations then. If for example, the first one is suppose to be subsequent differentiation by [tex]\partial_c[/tex], then wouldn't it be[tex]\xi_{a,b,c}+\xi_{b,a,c}=0[/tex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that it is supposed to be a second derivative, and the second comma is omitted. So:

[tex]\xi_{b,ca} = \partial_a(\partial_c\xi_b)[/tex]

EDIT: If you assume that, then does it work?
 
As far as i can tell, no. He seems to be permuting the indices but I don't know what about the killing vector allows one to do that.
 
If you're working in a flat space without a torsion, then the partial derivatives commute when applied to any covector, be it Killing or not.

So from the Killing equation [itex]\xi_{(a,b)} = 0[/itex], differentiating it by [itex]x^c[/itex], one obtains succesively

[tex]\xi_{(a,b)c} = \xi_{(a,bc)} = 0 {}[/tex] ,

thing which allows you, Stephani and everybody else to permute the indices in every of the 6 possible cases, without changing anything.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K