Metric Tensor Components: Inverse & Derivatives

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I have one question, which I don't know if I should post here again, but I found it in GR...
When you have a metric tensor with components:
[itex]g_{\mu \nu} = \eta _{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}, ~~ |h|<<1[/itex] (weak field approximation).

Then the inverse is:

[itex]g^{\mu \nu} = \eta^{\mu \nu} - h^{\mu \nu}[/itex] right? However that doesn't give exactly that [itex]g^{\mu \rho}g_{\rho \nu} = \delta^{\mu}_{\nu}[/itex] because of the existence of the [itex]- h^{\mu \rho}h_{\rho \nu}[/itex] which is of course small but it's not zero... Can the inverse matrix be defined approximately?

Also I don't understand why should the derivatives of [itex]h[/itex] behave as [itex]h[/itex] itself? I mean they take the terms like [itex]h \partial h, ~~ \partial h \partial h[/itex] to be of order [itex]\mathcal{O}(h^2)[/itex]... why?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
They mean to write
[tex]g_{ \mu \nu } = \eta_{ \mu \nu } + \epsilon h_{ \mu \nu } , \ \ \ |\epsilon | \ll 1.[/tex]
Then all the following holds
[tex]g \cdot g = \delta + \mathcal{O}( \epsilon^{2} ) , \ \ h \cdot h \sim h \partial h \sim \partial h \cdot \partial h \sim \mathcal{O} ( \epsilon^{ 2 } ) .[/tex]