Graduate Infinitesimal Coordinate Transformation and Lie Derivative

Click For Summary
Under an infinitesimal coordinate transformation, the variation of a vector can be expressed as the Lie derivative of that vector with respect to the transformation vector. The discussion highlights the derivation of the relationship between the transformed vector and its original form, emphasizing the importance of considering first-order terms in the transformation. A discrepancy arises in the expressions for the Lie derivative due to the order of expansion used, which can be resolved by expanding the transformed vector about the new coordinates instead of the original ones. This adjustment leads to the correct formulation of the variation, aligning it with the definition of the Lie derivative. The final conclusion is that higher-order terms in the infinitesimal change are negligible, confirming the validity of the derived expressions.
Baela
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Problem in attempt to express the variation of a vector ##U^\mu(x)## under infinitesimal coordinate transformation, as a Lie derivative ##\mathcal{L}_\xi U^\mu##
I need to prove that under an infinitesimal coordinate transformation ##x^{'\mu}=x^\mu-\xi^\mu(x)##, the variation of a vector ##U^\mu(x)## is $$\delta U^\mu(x)=U^{'\mu}(x)-U^\mu(x)=\mathcal{L}_\xi U^\mu$$ where ##\mathcal{L}_\xi U^\mu## is the Lie derivative of ##U^\mu## wrt the vector ##\xi^\nu##.

I have performed the following steps and have a question in the final result.

By general coordinate transformation rule we know that

\begin{align}
& U^{'\mu}(x')=\frac{\partial x^{'\mu}}{\partial x^\nu} U^\nu(x) \\
\Rightarrow\,\, &U^{'\mu}(x^\nu-\xi^\nu(x))=\Big[\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial x^\nu}-\frac{\partial \xi^\mu(x)}{\partial x^\nu}\Big]U^\nu(x)\\
\Rightarrow\,\, &U^{'\mu}(x^\nu)-\xi^\nu(x)\frac{\partial U^{'\mu}(x)}{\partial x^\nu}=\delta^\mu_\nu U^\nu(x)-\partial_\nu\xi^\mu(x)U^\nu(x)\quad \text{(Taylor expansion upto first order in}\,\, \xi^\nu\, \text{on LHS)} \\
\Rightarrow\,\, &U^{'\mu}(x)-U^\mu(x)=\xi^\nu(x)\partial_\nu U^{'\mu}(x)-\partial_\nu\xi^\mu(x)U^\nu(x)
\end{align}

The final expression on the RHS is $$\xi^\nu(x)\partial_\nu U^{'\mu}(x)-\partial_\nu\xi^\mu(x)U^\nu(x)$$ but the expression for ##\mathcal{L}_\xi U^\mu## is $$\mathcal{L}_\xi U^\mu=\xi^\nu(x)\partial_\nu U^{\mu}(x)-\partial_\nu\xi^\mu(x)U^\nu(x).$$ Why this discrepancy? What's the resolution?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The difference between \xi^{\nu}\partial_\nu U^{\mu} and \xi^{\nu}\partial_\nu U'^{\mu} is second order in \xi; for an infinitesimal change such higher order terms are neglected.

EDIT: Rather than expanding U&#039; about x, expand it about x&#039;. Then <br /> \begin{split}<br /> U&#039;^\mu(x) &amp;= U&#039;^\mu(x&#039; + \xi) \\<br /> &amp;= U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + \xi^\nu \partial&#039;_\nu U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + O(\xi^2)\\<br /> &amp;= U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + \xi^\nu (\partial&#039;_\nu x^\lambda) \partial_\lambda U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + O(\xi^2)\\<br /> &amp;= U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + \xi^\nu \left(\delta_\nu^\lambda + \partial&#039;_\nu \xi^\lambda \right) \partial_\lambda U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + O(\xi^2) \\<br /> &amp;= U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + \xi^\nu \partial_\nu U&#039;^\mu(x&#039;) + O(\xi^2)<br /> \end{split} and now substitute for U&#039;(x&#039;) to obtain \begin{split}<br /> U&#039;^\mu(x) &amp;= U^\mu(x) - U^\nu(x)\partial_\nu\xi^\mu + \xi^\nu \partial_\nu \left( <br /> U^\mu(x) - U^\lambda(x)\partial_\lambda\xi^\mu <br /> \right) + O(\xi^2) \\<br /> &amp;= U^\mu(x) - U^\nu(x)\partial_\nu\xi^\mu + \xi^\nu \partial_\nu U^\mu(x) + O(\xi^2)<br /> \end{split} as required.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and topsquark

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K