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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CAF123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that \(R^a_{[bcd]} = 0\) using the Ricci identity for co-vectors, specifically in the context of a torsionless connection. The Ricci identity is expressed as $$\nabla_a \nabla_b \lambda_c - \nabla_b \nabla_a \lambda_c = -R^d_{\,\,cab}\lambda_d$$. Participants suggest substituting the co-vector field \(\lambda_c = \nabla_c f\) into the identity and simplifying the resulting expressions. The conversation highlights the importance of the first Bianchi identity and references Wald's text for a correct approach.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Ricci identity and curvature tensors
  • Familiarity with torsionless connections in differential geometry
  • Knowledge of covector fields and their properties
  • Proficiency in manipulating indices and tensor notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the first Bianchi identity and its implications in differential geometry
  • Review Wald's "General Relativity" for detailed explanations on curvature
  • Practice problems involving Ricci identities and covector fields
  • Explore advanced topics in tensor calculus and their applications in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in differential geometry, theoretical physicists, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of general relativity.

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:
Physics news 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