A New Adler book on GR: Why do these coefficients go to zero?

peasg
Messages
2
Reaction score
4
1722552254555.png

This is page 73 of the book. As you can see, the mixed derivatives with the affine connections vanish in the second term. Why does that happen? This is used to prove that the connections are not a tensor, and i figured you could also reason it out even without making those terms vanish.

OBS: The derivatives are avaliated at P, for the reason that this is obtained via a taylor series of the transformation coefficients.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz and jbergman
Physics news on Phys.org
peasg said:
View attachment 349323
This is page 73 of the book. As you can see, the mixed derivatives with the affine connections vanish in the second term. Why does that happen?
The terms ##\left( \dfrac{\partial^2 \bar x^j}{\partial x^l \partial x^i } \right)_P \Gamma^i_{pq} V^q dx^l dx^p## have been dropped because they contain products ##dx^l dx^p##. Therefore, these terms are second-order in the infinitesimal coordinate displacements. Only terms up to first order need to be kept.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman, PhDeezNutz, Nugatory and 1 other person
TSny said:
The terms ##\left( \dfrac{\partial^2 \bar x^j}{\partial x^l \partial x^i } \right)_P \Gamma^i_{pq} V^q dx^l dx^p## have been dropped because they contain products ##dx^l dx^p##. Therefore, these terms are second-order in the infinitesimal coordinate displacements. Only terms up to first order need to be kept.
Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thank you for your time!
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz and TSny
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top