I forgot what this is called and what is is written out.

  • Thread starter Thread starter LostConjugate
  • Start date Start date
LostConjugate
Messages
850
Reaction score
3
\partial_u \partial^u

Isn't this like a box symbol? How is it written out again? You can write it out in 2 dimensions x,t no need to include all 3 spatial dimensions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\partial _{\mu }\partial ^{\mu } = \square ^{2} or \square. Both notations are used (with and without the 2). As in, \square ^{2}A^{\mu } = \partial ^{2}_{t}A^{\mu } - \triangledown ^{2}A^{\mu } in natural units.
 
It's the D'Alembert Operator, essentially the 3+1 generalization of the Laplacian. Using a space-negative metric:

\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}=\Box=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembertian
 
I am confused about why it is not written \partial_u \partial_u

I thought an upper index on a derivative implied that \partial x^u is in the numerator and not the denominator.
 
\partial _{\mu }\partial _{\mu } is simply the second partial derivative with respect to a single component \mu and won't give you the divergence which is \partial ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu } (notice that here you are summing over all the possible values of \mu, not just with respect to a single component like the other form). Don't try to write \partial ^{\mu } as you would the right hand side of \partial _{\mu } = \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\mu }}, it won't help. Just think of it as \partial ^{\mu } = g^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\nu }.
 
WannabeNewton said:
\partial _{\mu }\partial _{\mu } is simply the second partial derivative with respect to a single component \mu and won't give you the divergence which is \partial ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu } (notice that here you are summing over all the possible values of \mu, not just with respect to a single component like the other form). Don't try to write \partial ^{\mu } as you would the right hand side of \partial _{\mu } = \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\mu }}, it won't help. Just think of it as \partial ^{\mu } = g^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\nu }.

Oh, right. Thanks everyone.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top