How Do You Correctly Apply Indices in Tensor Calculus for Curvature?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of indices in tensor calculus, specifically in the context of curvature and parallel transport. Participants are exploring the computation of second derivatives involving Christoffel symbols and the manipulation of indices in tensor expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in calculating the second derivative involving Christoffel symbols and seeks clarification on the correct application of indices.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of redefining tensors at each step and whether this approach is valid.
  • Another participant proposes a transformation of the tensor expression and considers the implications of changing indices, particularly the running index in the context of the Christoffel symbols.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for cancellation of terms when manipulating indices and whether the multiplication of Christoffel symbols commutes with partial differentiation.
  • A participant reflects on their process of substitution and expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their final results, indicating a struggle with the complexity of the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct approach to applying indices in the calculations, and multiple competing views and uncertainties remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention potential mistakes in their calculations and express uncertainty about the implications of changing indices, as well as the behavior of Christoffel symbols in relation to the metric. There are unresolved questions regarding the validity of certain manipulations and the assumptions underlying their calculations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying tensor calculus, particularly in the context of general relativity or differential geometry, as well as individuals looking to deepen their understanding of the application of indices in mathematical physics.

BiGyElLoWhAt
Gold Member
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
138
Here's what I'm watching:

At about 1:35:00 he leaves it to us to look at a parallel transport issue. Explicitly to caclculate
##D_s D_r T_m - D_r D_s T_m##
And on the last term I'm having some difficulties, the second christoffel symbol.
So we have
##D_s [ \partial_r T_m - \Gamma_{rm}^t T_t]## after taking the first derivative. The first part of the second derivative is easy, but the second, I think I may have figured it out, but I'm not 100%, and would like someone to look at this to see if I'm doing this correctly, and if not, to correct me.
Second derivative:
##\partial_s [\partial_r T_m - \Gamma_{rm}^t T_t ] - \Gamma_{sm}^q [\partial_r T_q - \Gamma_{rq}^t T_t]##
My question is the running index (I think that's what it's called) on the second term, and how to replace the indices on, particularly, the very last christoffel symbol. I believe I need a different running index on the second derivative than I do for the first, so hence the q on ##\Gamma_{sm}^q## . However, my concern is in my ability to change the christoffel symbol ##\Gamma_{rm}^t## in the first derivative to ##\Gamma_{rq}^t## in the second. Part of me wants to do this:
##\Gamma_{sm}^q [\partial_r T_m - \Gamma_{rm}^t T_t]_q## **Edit** I realized after looking that I messed up with the m's here. Too many m's in the lower indices.
But I'm not sure if that's applicable. Also not sure what that would mean. I don't like changing anything within the [...] brackets, but I'm not sure how to introduce a new running index, as I'm relatively positive my result should be of the form ##S_{srm}## with S some tensor. Perhaps I should use T, but it's a different tensor of different rank, so I used S.

Hellp, someone learn me some knowledge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, so after watching a little bit further, it appears that my answer should be:
##R_{sr\ m}^{\ \ \ \ t} V_t ##
(In the video, he uses n, I used m).
Should I just define new tensors at each step? That's almost what it seems like he's doing/did.
Also, slightly off topic, his t is between the r and m, but latex wouldn't let me do that. Is that important? Also, can you do that in latex? (I botched it with spaces...)
 
Perhaps I figured it out. I think redefining the tensor, then substituting it back in helped. Lemme try again:
##D_s [\partial_r T_m - \Gamma_{rm}^t T_t] \to D_s V_{rm}##
##D_s V_{rm} = \partial_s V_{rm} - \Gamma_{sr}^q V_{qm} - \Gamma_{sm}^q V_{rq}##
##= \partial_s [\partial_r T_m - \Gamma_{rm}^t T_t ] - \Gamma_{sr}^q [ \partial_q T_m - \Gamma_{qm}^t T_t ] - \Gamma_{sm}^q [ \partial_r T_q - \Gamma_{rq}^t T_t ] ##
I'm relatively confident that this is accurate, however, unnecessary. Perhaps, upon doing the second term (the second half of the commutator) I will get some cancellation, but I'm wondering if I can simplify this. I'm thinking that I should be able to use similar indices on some of the terms, since I should be able to "run" an index separately for each different term separately. So my t's in the first term, I should be able to run them separately from my t's in the second term and the 3rd term, fill the matrices, and then sum them all together. With that in mind, do I actually need all of this explicitly?
 
Eh, I made a mistake.
This is my final result:
##-\partial_s \Gamma_{rm}^t T_t - \Gamma _{sm}^q [\partial_r T_q - \Gamma _{rq}^t T_t ] + \partial_r \Gamma_{sm}^t T_t + \Gamma_{rm}^q [\partial_s T_q - \Gamma_{sq}^t T_t ] ##

My first derivative is above, in post #3 D_s D_r T_m
Here's my second, D_r D_s T_m:
##\partial_r [\partial_s T_m - \Gamma_{sm}^t T_t ] - \Gamma_{rs}^q [\partial_q T_m - \Gamma_{qm}^t T_t ] - \Gamma_{rm}^q [ \partial_s T_q - \Gamma_{qs}^t T_t] ##
The final result is the difference between the two.
So I'm left with 4 partial derivatives instead of 2, and 2 dual christoffel terms. I have 2 partial terms too many. If I can replace my q's with t's on the running indices, then all the partial terms cancel out, but I can only do that assuming that multiplication by a christoffel commutes with partial differentiation, which I'm not so sure, since christoffel symbols are functions of the metric, which can depend on the position...
The second derivative I solved using the same exact method as the first, except instead of ##V_{rm}## as the substitution, it's ##V_{sm}##, for obvious reasons.

I'm really lost here, and can't seem to find what I did wrong. Any advice, people of PF?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
818
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
8K