Minkowski metric tensor computation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the computation of the Minkowski metric tensor and the application of Einstein's summation convention in the context of changing coordinates from Cartesian to spherical coordinates. Participants explore the implications of these transformations on the metric components and the line element in flat spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about tensors and the summation convention while attempting to compute the metric in spherical coordinates.
  • Another participant questions whether the original poster summed over the repeated indices in the change of coordinates formula, suggesting this is crucial for the correct computation.
  • A different participant proposes that the line element should include terms that account for all combinations of the indices, indicating a more complex structure than initially presented.
  • The original poster acknowledges a misunderstanding and suggests that they now see the need for more summands in the line element equation, indicating a shift in their understanding.
  • Some participants express appreciation for the clarification and confirm their understanding of the computational process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct formulation of the line element and the metric components, as there are differing interpretations of the summation convention and the necessary terms involved in the computation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in understanding the application of the summation convention and the complexity of the metric tensor transformations, which may depend on the definitions and assumptions made by the participants.

Advent
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm having problem with understanding tensors and the Einsteins summation convention, so I decided to start doing explicit calculations, and I'm doing it in the wrong way. Hope someone could help me to clarify the concepts.

In flat spacetime we have [tex]\eta[/tex] with the signature (-+++). Under some coordinate change, say [tex]x_{\mu} \rightarrow x_{\overline{\mu}}[/tex], then the metric changes as [tex]g_{ \overline{\mu} \overline{\nu}}=\frac{ \partial x^{\rho}}{ \partial x_{\overline{\mu}}} \frac{ \partial x^{\sigma}}{ \partial x_{\overline{\nu}}}g_{ \overline{\rho} \overline{\sigma}}[/tex]. So, If I change the coordinate system from Cartesian [tex](t,x,y,z)[/tex] to spherical [tex](t,r, \theta, \varphi)[/tex] with the following equations

[tex]x = r \cos(\varphi) \cos (\theta)[/tex], [tex]y = r \cos(\varphi) \sin (\theta)[/tex], [tex]z = r \sin(\varphi)[/tex], [tex]t = t[/tex]. The four non-zero componentes of the metric [tex]\eta[/tex] in spherical coordinates should be:

[tex]g_{11} = (\frac{ \partial t }{ \partial t })^2 g_{1'1'}=-1[/tex]


[tex]g_{22} =(\frac{ \partial x }{ \partial r })^2 g_{2'2'}=\cos^2(\varphi) \cos^2 (\theta)[/tex]


[tex]g_{33} =(\frac{ \partial y }{ \partial \theta })^2 g_{3'3'}=r^2 \cos^2(\varphi) \cos^2 (\theta)[/tex]


[tex]g_{44} =(\frac{ \partial z }{ \partial \varphi })^2 g_{4'4'}=r^2 \cos^2(\varphi)[/tex]

And finally, the line element [tex]ds^2=g_{\mu \nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}=dt^2+\cos^2(\varphi) \cos^2 dr^2+ r^2 \cos^2(\varphi) \cos^2 d^2 \theta + r^2 \cos^2(\varphi) d^2 \varphi[/tex] which is incorrect.

Thanks for your time, any help will be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you sum over the repeated indices in the change of coordinates formula (summation convention)?
 
atyy said:
Did you sum over the repeated indices in the change of coordinates formula (summation convention)?

I think I did, in fact it explains the square of the derivatives.
 
I'm not sure about this, but I think in grr you should have terms like (dt/dr)^2.gtt+(dx/dr)^2.gxx+(dy/dr)^2.gyy+(dz/dr)^2+(dt/dr)(dx/dr)gtr + ...

where in your formula I've taken u=r,v=r and rho and sigma must be summed over all combinations of rho=t,x,y,x and sigma=t,x,y,z
 
atyy said:
I'm not sure about this, but I think in grr you should have terms like (dt/dr)^2.gtt+(dx/dr)^2.gxx+(dy/dr)^2.gyy+(dz/dr)^2+(dt/dr)(dx/dr)gtr + ...

Thanks for your posts.

I think now I understand your point. Do you mean that, in the equation of the line element should be 4*4=16 summands instead of only four, by varying the ro and sigma indices between all their range?
 
Ok, just answered too fast!

Then this was my error, thank you so much!
 
Advent said:
Ok, just answered too fast!

Then this was my error, thank you so much!

Wow, you sure compute fast! Good to know - I wasn't sure about this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
880
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K