How to Prove \(R^a_{[bcd]} = 0\) Using the Ricci Identity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CAF123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87
1. Homework Statement
Given ##\nabla## a torsionless connection, the Ricci identity for co-vectors is $$\nabla_a \nabla_b \lambda_c - \nabla_b \nabla_a \lambda_c = -R^d_{\,\,cab}\lambda_d.$$
Prove ##R^a_{[bcd]} = 0## by considering the co-vector field ##\lambda_c = \nabla_c f##

Homework Equations


$$R^a_{[bcd]} = 0 = \frac{1}{3!} \left(R^a_{\,\,bcd} + R^a_{\,\,cdb} + R^a_{\,\,dbc} - R^a_{\,\,bdc} - R^a_{\,\,cbd} - R^a_{\,\,dcb}\right)$$

The Attempt at a Solution


Input the given form for the covector into the Ricci identity in the question. Then since ##\nabla_c f = e_c(f),## we have
$$\nabla_a \nabla_b e_c(f) - \nabla_b \nabla_a e_c(f) = -R^d_{\,\,cab}e_d(f).$$ True for all functions f, so $$\nabla_a \nabla_b e_c - \nabla_b \nabla_a e_c = -R^d_{\,\,cab}e_d.$$ Then since ##\nabla_a e_b = \Gamma^d_{ba} e_d## we can simplify the above to give $$\nabla_a \Gamma^d_{cb}e_d - \nabla_b \Gamma^d_{ca}e_d = -R^d_{\,\,cab}e_d$$ which can then be further rewritten like $$\nabla_a \Gamma^d_{cb} + \Gamma^{\alpha}_{cb}\Gamma^d_{\alpha a} - \nabla_b \Gamma^d_{ca} - \Gamma^{\alpha}_{ca}\Gamma^d_{\alpha b} = -R^d_{\,\,cab}.$$ I was then going to relabel all indices to get terms like that in the equation in 'Relevant Equations' and sum them all up and I hoped to get zero, but it is not. Have I made an error in the above somewhere? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
on Phys.org
I'm a bit rusty on this stuff, but,... since no one else has replied,...

Where did this problem come from? Is it from a textbook? Online notes? (If the latter, please provide a link.)

CAF123 said:
$$R^a_{[bcd]} = 0 = \frac{1}{3!} \left(R^a_{\,\,bcd} + R^a_{\,\,cdb} + R^a_{\,\,dbc} - R^a_{\,\,bdc} - R^a_{\,\,cbd} - R^a_{\,\,dcb}\right)$$
Since ##R^a_{bcd}## is already skewsymmetric in the last 2 indices, you can simplify the rhs down to 3 terms, which is a sum of cyclically permuted b,c,d, indices. In that form it's called the "first Bianchi identity". Proving that might be less work. Check out the associated formulas on Wikipedia.

Also, I don't understand how you went from your 2nd-last line to your last line.
 
I just realized... the correct method is sketched in Wald p39.

(I guess I'm rustier than I realized.)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K