Index Raising in Linearized General Relavitiy

  • Thread starter Thread starter alex3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General Index
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
6 replies · 2K views
alex3
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
I'm reading a few textbooks (Straumann, Schutz, Hartle) on GR and am a little confused working through a small part of each on linearized GR.

1. Relevant equations

Using Straumann, the Ricci tensor is given by

[tex] R_{\mu\nu} =<br /> \partial_{\lambda} \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\phantom{k}\nu\mu} -<br /> \partial_{\nu} \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\phantom{k}\lambda\mu}[/tex]

with the Christoffel symbols given by

[tex] \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{k}\mu\nu}<br /> =<br /> \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\alpha\beta}<br /> (<br /> h_{\mu\beta,\nu} +<br /> h_{\beta\nu,\mu} -<br /> h_{\mu\nu,\beta}<br /> )[/tex]

2. The problem

My problem is that the book is confusing me on the next equality. This what I expected when applying the flat metric:

[tex] \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{k}\mu\nu}<br /> =<br /> \frac{1}{2}<br /> (<br /> \eta^{\alpha\beta}h_{\mu\beta,\nu} +<br /> \eta^{\alpha\beta}h_{\beta\nu,\mu} -<br /> \eta^{\alpha\beta}h_{\mu\nu,\beta}<br /> )<br /> \\<br /> \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{k}\mu\nu}<br /> =<br /> \frac{1}{2}<br /> (<br /> h_{\mu\phantom{\alpha},\nu}^{\phantom{k}\alpha} +<br /> h^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu,\mu} -<br /> h_{\mu\nu}^{\phantom{\mu\nu},\alpha}<br /> )[/tex]

i.e. the flat metric raises all [itex]\beta[/itex]'s to [itex]\alpha[/itex]'s.

However, the book gets this

[tex] \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{k}\mu\nu}<br /> =<br /> \frac{1}{2}<br /> (<br /> h^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\mu,\nu} +<br /> h^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu,\mu} -<br /> h_{\mu\nu}^{\phantom{\mu\nu},\alpha}<br /> )[/tex]

So, the problem is in the first term: how come the book is able to swap the [itex]\alpha[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex] like that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because [itex]h_{\mu \beta , \nu}[/itex] is symmetric in [itex]\mu[/itex] and [itex]\beta[/itex], [itex]h_{\mu\phantom{\alpha},\nu}^{\phantom{k}\alpha} = h^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\mu,\nu}[/itex].


[tex]\eta^{\alpha\beta} h_{\mu\beta,\nu} = \eta^{\alpha \beta} h_{\beta \mu , \nu}[/tex]
 
How do we know that [itex]h_{\alpha\beta}[/itex] is symmetric? I can't see it mentioned anywhere. The only condition I see is [itex]\lvert h_{\alpha\beta}\rvert \ll 1[/itex].
 
alex3 said:
How do we know that [itex]h_{\alpha\beta}[/itex] is symmetric? I can't see it mentioned anywhere. The only condition I see is [itex]\lvert h_{\alpha\beta}\rvert \ll 1[/itex].

[itex]h_{\alpha\beta} = g_{\alpha\beta} - \eta_{\alpha\beta}[/itex], and [itex]g[/itex] and [itex]\eta[/itex] are both symmetric.
 
Why do we assume [itex]g_{\alpha\beta}[/itex] is symmetric then? Is that a property we assume of all metrics? I didn't think we did. Do we assume symmetry of [itex]g_{\alpha\beta}[/itex] as it deviates only slightly from the Minkowski metric?
 
Last edited:
alex3 said:
Why do we assume [itex]g_{\alpha\beta}[/itex] is symmetric then? Is that a property we assume of all metrics?[/itex]

In standard general relativity, yes.

alex3 said:
I didn't think we did. Do we assume symmetry of [itex]g_{\alpha\beta}[/itex] as it deviates only slightly from the Minkowski metric?

No, a symmetric [itex]g[/itex] can differ substantially from the Minkowski metric.

If the metric weren't symmetric, then it would not always have a tangent space isomorphic to Minkowski spacetime. If a metric tensor field is not symmetric, then there exists at least one point (event) at which the metric tensor for the tangent space is not symmetric.