Momentum Constraint in GR: ADM Formalism

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the momentum constraint in General Relativity (GR) within the ADM formalism, specifically comparing different formulations of the momentum constraint equations. Participants explore the implications of these equations in the context of numerical relativity and the conditions under which they may be equivalent.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 presents two forms of the momentum constraint, equations (1a) and (1b), and contrasts them with a numerical relativity formulation (2), questioning which is correct given that they coincide only under specific conditions regarding the metric.
  • Post 2 reiterates the same equations and poses the same question about their correctness, emphasizing the dependency of the metric on spatial coordinates.
  • Post 3 questions the validity of writing the covariant derivative of the square root of the determinant of the metric as a partial derivative, suggesting a potential misunderstanding of the relationship between the covariant and partial derivatives in this context.
  • Post 4 corrects the previous assertion by clarifying that the square root of the determinant is a density rather than a scalar, asserting that all expressions for the momentum constraint are equivalent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equivalence of the momentum constraint formulations, with some asserting they are equivalent under certain conditions while others question the assumptions leading to this equivalence. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these formulations in different contexts.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the metric's dependency on spatial coordinates and the interpretation of the covariant derivative in relation to densities versus scalars.

Sergei65
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Momentum constraint in GR in ADM formalism is written in the form

$$\mathcal M_i=\gamma_{ij}D_k\pi^{kj},~~~~~~~~~~(1a)$$ or equivalently

$$\mathcal M_i=D_k\pi^{k}_i,~~~~~~~~~~(1b)$$ where
##\pi^{ij}=-\gamma^{1/2}\left(K^{ij}-\gamma^{ij}K\right)~##, ##K=\gamma^{ij}K_{ij}~##, ##\gamma=\det \gamma_{ij}~## and ##D_i~## is covariant derivative. This is from DeWitt1967 parer and original ADM parer.

However, those who deal with numerical relativity uses $$\mathcal
M_i=D_jK^j_i-D_iK.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(2)$$

What formula is right? (they coincides only if ##\gamma## does not depend on spatial coordinates, which is evidently not the case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sergei65 said:
Momentum constraint in GR in ADM formalism is written in the form

$$\mathcal M_i=\gamma_{ij}D_k\pi^{kj},~~~~~~~~~~(1a)$$ or equivalently

$$\mathcal M_i=D_k\pi^{k}_i,~~~~~~~~~~(1b)$$ where
##\pi^{ij}=-\gamma^{1/2}\left(K^{ij}-\gamma^{ij}K\right)~##, ##K=\gamma^{ij}K_{ij}~##, ##\gamma=\det \gamma_{ij}~## and ##D_i~## is covariant derivative. This is from DeWitt1967 parer and original ADM parer.

However, those who deal with numerical relativity uses $$\mathcal
M_i=D_jK^j_i-D_iK.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(2)$$

What formula is right? (they coincides only if ##\gamma## does not depend on spatial coordinates, which is evidently not the case.

I think the equations 1a, 1b and 2 are all same (besides a factor of ##-\sqrt{\gamma}## in equation 2). To establish the equality you need to use the fact that the intrinsic covariant derivative is (pullback) metric compatible. Also ##D_i\sqrt{\gamma}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma}\gamma^{ab}D_i\gamma_{ab}=0##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sergei65 and Dale
Let me ask, why we could not write ##D_i\sqrt {\gamma}=\partial_i \sqrt {\gamma}\sim\gamma^{ab}\partial_i\gamma_{ab}\ne0##? I ask this because it is well known that ##d\gamma\sim\gamma^{ab}d\gamma_{ab}##, where ##d## is usual differencial. From the other hand it seems that ##D_i\gamma=\partial_i \gamma##.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ravi Mohan

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K