Is There an Error in My Christoffel Symbol Calculations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter redstone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Symbol
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the accuracy of calculations involving Christoffel symbols and index manipulation in tensor equations. The main issue identified is the incorrect summation of indices, particularly when moving terms between the left-hand side and right-hand side of equations. Several specific equations are analyzed, revealing mistakes in treating indices and the implications of their traces. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding index notation and recommend consulting undergraduate relativity texts for clarification. Overall, the conversation highlights common pitfalls in tensor calculus and the need for careful attention to index operations.
redstone
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I'm learning about the Christoffel symbol and playing around with it, so I'm curious... Does the math work below, or have I done something wrong?

\Gamma^{j}_{cd}=\Gamma^{j}_{cd}
g^{cd}\Gamma^{j}_{cd}=g^{cd}\Gamma^{j}_{cd}
\frac{1}{2}g^{cd}g^{jm}\left(g_{md,c}+g_{mc,d}-g_{cd,m}\right)=\frac{1}{2}g^{cd}g^{jm}\left(g_{md,c}+g_{mc,d}-g_{cd,m}\right)
\frac{1}{2}g^{cd}g^{jm}\left(g_{md,c}+g_{mc,d}-g_{cd,m}\right)=\frac{1}{2}g^{ab}g^{jm}\left(g_{mb,a}+g_{ma,b}-g_{ab,m}\right)
\frac{1}{2}g^{jm}\left(g_{md,c}+g_{mc,d}-g_{cd,m}\right)=\frac{1}{2}g_{cd}g^{ab}g^{jm}\left(g_{mb,a}+g_{ma,b}-g_{ab,m}\right)
\Gamma^{j}_{cd}=g_{cd}g^{ab}\Gamma^{j}_{ab}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, the problem is that you're summing over both c,d in

<br /> g^{cd}\Gamma^{j}_{cd}=g^{ab}\Gamma^{j}_{ab}<br />

and there's no operation that we can do to move g^{cd} over to the RHS. There's no free index available to use

g_{ec} g^{cd} = \delta^d_e

or similar identities.
 
OK, so I guess there's something wrong with the following too then?

1) g_{ab}A^{ab}=g_{cd}A^{cd}
2) g_{ab}g^a_eA^{eb}=g_{cd}A^{cd}
3) g_{ab}g^a_eA^{eb}=g^e_ag^a_eg_{cd}A^{cd}
4) g_{ab}A^{eb}=g^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
5) g^f_bg_{af}A^{eb}=g^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
6) g^f_bg_{af}A^{eb}=g^f_bg^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
7) g_{af}A^{eb}=g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
8) g^{af}g_{af}A^{eb}=g^{af}g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
9) g^a_aA^{eb}=g^{af}g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
10) A^{eb}=g^{af}g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
11) A^{eb}=g^{ab}g^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
12) A^{eb}=g^{eb}g_{cd}A^{cd}
13) A^{ab}=g^{ab}g_{cd}A^{cd}

Where did I go wrong here? Also, maybe you know of a good reference that gives a good overview of what is and isn't allowed in index gymnastics?
 
redstone said:
OK, so I guess there's something wrong with the following too then?

1) g_{ab}A^{ab}=g_{cd}A^{cd}

This is just a relabeling of indices and is correct.

2) g_{ab}g^a_eA^{eb}=g_{cd}A^{cd}

Here g^a_e = g^{af}g_{fe} = \delta^a_e so this equation is correct.

3) g_{ab}g^a_eA^{eb}=g^e_ag^a_eg_{cd}A^{cd}

The LHS is g_{ae} A^{eb}=A^b_a, while the RHS involves the trace of A, so this equation is not generally correct.

4) g_{ab}A^{eb}=g^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
5) g^f_bg_{af}A^{eb}=g^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
6) g^f_bg_{af}A^{eb}=g^f_bg^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
7) g_{af}A^{eb}=g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}

These are all equivalent to 3 and incorrect.

8) g^{af}g_{af}A^{eb}=g^{af}g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
9) g^a_aA^{eb}=g^{af}g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}

For both, the LHS involves the trace of the metric, while the RHS involves the trace of A, this is incorrect in general.

10) A^{eb}=g^{af}g^b_fg^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
11) A^{eb}=g^{ab}g^e_ag_{cd}A^{cd}
12) A^{eb}=g^{eb}g_{cd}A^{cd}
13) A^{ab}=g^{ab}g_{cd}A^{cd}

These are all the same equation and are incorrect.


Where did I go wrong here? Also, maybe you know of a good reference that gives a good overview of what is and isn't allowed in index gymnastics?

Any undergrad relativity tex should spend some time explaining index notation. You should know that g^{ab} is the inverse of g_{bc} as a matrix so that g^{ab}g_{bc}=\delta^a_c. You should also know that you generally never repeat an index twice in an expression.

Finally you could have actually thought about what your expressions look like in components as a sanity check. For instance, equation 13 above is telling you that

A^{11} = g^{11} \left( g_{11}A^{11} + g_{12}( A^{12} + A^{21}) + \cdots \right).

The RHS is drastically different from the LHS and would not be satisfied by an arbitrary tensor A.

Do lots of exercises and the formalism will start to sink in.
 
fzero said:
g_{ab}g^a_eA^{eb}=g^e_ag^a_eg_{cd}A^{cd}

The LHS is g_{ae} A^{eb}=A^b_a, while the RHS involves the trace of A, so this equation is not generally correct.

This confuses me a bit. The only difference between this step and step 2, is that here the RHS includes g^e_a and g^a_e
which I thought were both just identity matrices? so doesn't that mean it should be the same as step 2?
 
redstone said:
This confuses me a bit. The only difference between this step and step 2, is that here the RHS includes g^e_a and g^a_e
which I thought were both just identity matrices? so doesn't that mean it should be the same as step 2?

OK, I did make a mistake there. The LHS is

<br /> g_{ab}g^a_eA^{eb}= g_{eb} A^{eb}<br />

but the RHS is

<br /> g^e_ag^a_eg_{cd}A^{cd} = \delta^a_a g_{cd}A^{cd}. <br />

\delta^a_a = D, the dimension of the space, so this is still incorrect.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top