How to contract the christoffel symbol

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TimeRip496
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Christoffel Symbol
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the contraction of the Christoffel symbols, specifically focusing on the mathematical steps involved in this process. Participants explore definitions, intermediate steps, and potential errors in calculations, with a particular emphasis on the implications of contracting indices in the context of differential geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest starting with the definition of Christoffel symbols and contracting the indices to understand the outcome.
  • One participant expresses confusion about their intermediate steps and the resulting expressions, indicating a lack of clarity in their calculations.
  • Another participant points out that without showing intermediate steps, it is difficult to identify where errors may have occurred.
  • There is a mention of the relationship between the metric tensor and its inverse, with a participant noting that the derivative of a constant should equal zero, implying a mistake in earlier calculations.
  • A later reply proposes expanding the expression for the contracted Christoffel symbol to see its components in terms of the metric, suggesting a method to clarify the calculations.
  • One participant questions whether contracting the symbol will yield the same formula as previously discussed, indicating uncertainty about the process.
  • Another participant clarifies that one cannot contract two lower indices and suggests looking for a contraction involving one upper and one lower index instead.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct approach to contracting the Christoffel symbols, with multiple competing views and uncertainties expressed throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity in intermediate steps, potential misunderstandings about the contraction process, and unresolved mathematical expressions that may affect the overall understanding of the topic.

TimeRip496
Messages
249
Reaction score
5
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/vlatex/pics/92_db3a451c7d105432675bef473582556e.png

Anyone can help me? I am really stuck at here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
TimeRip496 said:
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/vlatex/pics/92_db3a451c7d105432675bef473582556e.png

Anyone can help me? I am really stuck at here.
Well, you should at least show your work so far, and exactly where you get "stuck". I.e., like in the homework forums.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You might start with writing out how the Christoffel symbols are defined, and then contracting the two indices to see what you get.
 
strangerep said:
Well, you should at least show your work so far, and exactly where you get "stuck". I.e., like in the homework forums.
I get (0.5)(d/dxμ)(gσv)(gσv) . I don't even know to get that ln.

Sorry for my untidiness as I am still new to this.
 
If you don't show your intermediate steps, we can't really tell where you went wrong. By the way ##g_{\sigma\nu}g^{\sigma\nu}=\delta_\sigma^{~~\sigma}=n## where ##n## is the dimension of the manifold. So you definitely went wrong somewhere as your expression is the derivative of a constant so will equal 0.
 
Matterwave said:
If you don't show your intermediate steps, we can't really tell where you went wrong. By the way ##g_{\sigma\nu}g^{\sigma\nu}=\delta_\sigma^{~~\sigma}=n## where ##n## is the dimension of the manifold. So you definitely went wrong somewhere as your expression is the derivative of a constant so will equal 0.
IMG_20150125_142314-1.jpg

I did that by cancelling out the indices.
 
Ok, but your final result ##\Gamma^\sigma_{\sigma\mu}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\sigma\nu}\partial_\mu g_{\sigma\nu}## is very different than the one you wrote in post #4.

You are pretty close to the answer. Perhaps the easiest way to move forward now is to expand the original statement ##\Gamma^\sigma_{\sigma\mu}=\partial_\mu (\ln\sqrt{g})## out to see what that looks like in terms of components ##g_{\mu\nu}## (it will be pretty hard to reverse-engineer this I think). The easiest way to work out the equation in the OP is to transform to a coordinate system in which the metric is diagonal (which can always be done), work out the derivatives in terms of components of the metric in that coordinate system, and then produce an equation which will work in any coordinate system. :)
 
Matterwave said:
Ok, but your final result ##\Gamma^\sigma_{\sigma\mu}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\sigma\nu}\partial_\mu g_{\sigma\nu}## is very different than the one you wrote in post #4.

You are pretty close to the answer. Perhaps the easiest way to move forward now is to expand the original statement ##\Gamma^\sigma_{\sigma\mu}=\partial_\mu (\ln\sqrt{g})## out to see what that looks like in terms of components ##g_{\mu\nu}## (it will be pretty hard to reverse-engineer this I think). The easiest way to work out the equation in the OP is to transform to a coordinate system in which the metric is diagonal (which can always be done), work out the derivatives in terms of components of the metric in that coordinate system, and then produce an equation which will work in any coordinate system. :)
Thanks! I did finally manage to contract it. However, I have difficulty contracting Γσμμ. Is contracting it going to give us the same formula as shown above? I search online but I can't find any contraction of that christoffel symbol given above.
 
TimeRip496 said:
Thanks! I did finally manage to contract it. However, I have difficulty contracting Γσμμ. Is contracting it going to give us the same formula as shown above? I search online but I can't find any contraction of that christoffel symbol given above.

You can't "contract" two indices which are both lower indices. You can only contract one upper index with a lower index. So what you want to look for is actually ##g^{\mu\nu}\Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu}##. Try writing that out and seeing what it turns out to be.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K