I Parallel Transport of a Tensor: Understand Equation

AndersF
Messages
27
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
Understanding the equation for a tensor to be parallel-transported
According to my book, the equation that should meet a vector ##\mathbf{v}=v^i\mathbf{e}_i## in order to be parallel-transported in a manifold is:

##v_{, j}^{i}+v^{k} \Gamma_{k j}^{i}=0##

Where ##v_{, j}^i## stands for ##\partial{v^i}{\partial y^j}##, that is, the partial derivative of the component ##v^i## of ##\mathbf{v}## with respect to the general coordinate ##y^j##. I see that there is a sum in ##k## form 1 to ##n##, and that this equation must be meet for all ##i,j=1,2,...,n##, being ##n## the dimenssion of the manifold.

However, I find it difficult to understand how to read this formula describing the condition for parallel transport of a tensor:

##T_{j_{1} j_{2} \ldots j_{r}, k}^{i_{1} i_{2} \ldots i_{s}}+\sum_{m=1}^{s} T_{j_{1} j_{2} \ldots j_{r}}^{i_{1} i_{2} \ldots p_{m} \ldots i_{s}} \Gamma_{p_{m} k}^{i_{m}}-\sum_{n=1}^{r} T_{j_{1} j_{2} \ldots q_{n} \ldots j_{r}}^{i_{1} i_{2} \ldots i_{s}} \Gamma_{j_{n} k}^{q_{n}}=0##

(My theory is that whoever wrote that formula probably did so to engage in a competition of convoluted mathematical notations... :confused: )

Could somebody please help me understand it how should be read? For example, how would it apply for a tensor of order three ##T^{a,b}_{\alpha,\beta}##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not the easiest notation to read is it, haha. A tensor ##T^{\mu \dots}_{\nu \dots}## is parallel transported along a curve of tangent ##u^{\mu} = dx^{\mu}/d\lambda## if \begin{align*}
\dfrac{DT^{\mu \dots}_{\nu \dots}}{d\lambda} = u^{\rho} \nabla_{\rho} T^{\mu \dots}_{\nu \dots} = u^{\rho} (\partial_{\rho} T^{\mu \dots}_{\nu \dots} + \Gamma^{\mu}_{\sigma \rho} T^{\sigma}_{\nu} - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\nu \rho} T^{\mu \dots}_{\sigma \dots} + \dots) = 0
\end{align*}There's one correction term per tensor index in the covariant derivative. Notice the patern: each index is pulled onto the Christoffel symbol and then replaced with a dummy index. Terms correcting for upper indices appear with a ##+## sign, and terms correcting for lower indices appear with a ##-## sign.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, AndersF and PeroK
Oh ok, it is by far much clearer the way you wrote it. Now I see it, thanks!
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top