Prove Weak Field Metric Homework Statement

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a relation involving the Ricci tensor in the context of a weak field metric in general relativity. The metric is expressed in terms of a small parameter epsilon and perturbations denoted by h_{00} and h_{\alpha\beta}. Participants are tasked with deriving the expression for R_{00} based on the given metric components.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of the Ricci tensor's definition and the Christoffel symbols, with some attempting to derive the expression directly while others express confusion over index notation and the implications of the weak field approximation.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants clarifying notation and assumptions. Some have provided hints regarding the use of Bianchi identities and the structure of the metric, while others are still grappling with the implications of their approaches and the correct handling of indices.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the interpretation of indices in the metric components and the assumption that certain elements are non-zero. Participants are also considering the implications of spatial versus temporal derivatives in their derivations.

aman02
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For the weak field metric
[tex]g_{00}=-1+\epsilon h_{00}+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]
[tex]g_{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\alpha\beta}+\epsilon h_{\alpha\beta}+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]
Prove
[tex]R_{00}=-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\frac{\partial^2h_{00}}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta}+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]

Homework Equations


The hint was to use:
[tex]R^q_{lmn}=\Gamma^q_{ln,m}-\Gamma^q_{lm,n}+\Gamma^p_{ln}\Gamma^q_{pm}-\Gamma^p_{lm}\Gamma^q_{pn}[/tex]
[tex]R_{ijkl;m}+R_{ijlm;k}+R_{ijmk;l}=0[/tex]
But I couldn't figure out how, so I included
[tex]\Gamma^i_{jk}=\frac{1}{2}g^{il}(g_{jl,k}+g_{lk,j}-g_{kj,l})[/tex]
[tex]R_{jl}=R^i_{jil}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to do it the long way without the Bianchi identity, and started with the basic definition of the Ricci tensor.
[tex]R_{00}=R^\alpha_{0 \alpha 0}=\Gamma^\alpha_{00,\alpha}-\Gamma^\alpha_{0 \alpha,0}+\Gamma^p_{00}\Gamma^\alpha_{p \alpha}-\Gamma^p_{0 \alpha}\Gamma^\alpha_{p0}[/tex]
Then using the definition of the Christoffel symbols,
[tex]\Gamma^\alpha_{00}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \alpha}(g_{0\alpha,0}+g_{\alpha 0,0}-g_{00,\alpha})[/tex]
[tex]g_{\alpha \alpha}\Gamma^\alpha_{00}=\frac{1}{2}(4)(-1+\epsilon h_{00}+O(\epsilon^2))_{, \alpha}[/tex]
[tex]g_{\alpha \alpha}\Gamma^\alpha_{00}=-2\epsilon (\frac{\partial h_{00}}{\partial x^\alpha})+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]
Similarly, I found that
[tex]g_{\alpha \alpha}\Gamma^0_{0 \alpha}=2\epsilon (\frac{\partial h_{00}}{\partial x^\alpha})+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]
It seems from here, the solution is fairly close, but I don't know what to do with the [tex]g_{\alpha \alpha}[/tex], or if I should even have them. If not, I don't know how to deal with the [tex]g^{\alpha \alpha}[/tex] in the original definition (I just lowered the indices and got the trace of the metric, 4 for our 4-dimensional space-time). Could using Bianchi help? I'm not quite sure how to proceed, any help is appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
aman02 said:

Homework Statement


For the weak field metric
[tex]g_{00}=-1+\epsilon h_{00}+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]
[tex]g_{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\alpha\beta}+\epsilon h_{\alpha\beta}+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]
that's a bit confusing. You mean that alpha and beta are only 1,2,3 in the second equation?

Prove
[tex]R_{00}=-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\frac{\partial^2h_{00}}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta}+O(\epsilon^2)[/tex]

Homework Equations


The hint was to use:
[tex]R^q_{lmn}=\Gamma^q_{ln,m}-\Gamma^q_{lm,n}+\Gamma^p_{ln}\Gamma^q_{pm}-\Gamma^p_{lm}\Gamma^q_{pn}[/tex]
[tex]R_{ijkl;m}+R_{ijlm;k}+R_{ijmk;l}=0[/tex]
But I couldn't figure out how, so I included
[tex]\Gamma^i_{jk}=\frac{1}{2}g^{il}(g_{jl,k}+g_{lk,j}-g_{kj,l})[/tex]
[tex]R_{jl}=R^i_{jil}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to do it the long way without the Bianchi identity, and started with the basic definition of the Ricci tensor.
[tex]R_{00}=R^\alpha_{0 \alpha 0}=\Gamma^\alpha_{00,\alpha}-\Gamma^\alpha_{0 \alpha,0}+\Gamma^p_{00}\Gamma^\alpha_{p \alpha}-\Gamma^p_{0 \alpha}\Gamma^\alpha_{p0}[/tex]
Then using the definition of the Christoffel symbols,
[tex]\Gamma^\alpha_{00}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \alpha}(g_{0\alpha,0}+g_{\alpha 0,0}-g_{00,\alpha})[/tex]

This does not make sense since there are three alphas on the right. be careful with the indices


[tex]g_{\alpha \alpha}\Gamma^\alpha_{00}=\frac{1}{2}(4)(-1+\epsilon h_{00}+O(\epsilon^2))_\alpha[/tex]

This does not make sense. What does [itex]1_\alpha[/itex] mean? Or what is [itex](h_{00})_\alpha[/itex]??


I am not sure about the fastest way to proceed but if you do it the long way, why not find [itex]g^{\mu \nu }[/itex] to first order? You should find easily that it is [itex]\eta^{\mu \nu} - \epsilon h^{\mu \nu}[/itex]
 
Last edited:
kdv said:
that's a bit confusing. You mean that alpha and beta are only 1,2,3 in the second equation?
Sorry, yes, that is what I meant.

kdv said:
This does not make sense since there are three alphas on the right. be careful with the indices
I may have skipped a step - I noticed the only non-zero elements in [tex]g_{ab}[/tex] and [tex]g^{ab}[/tex] are those on the diagonal, so I let [tex]l=\alpha[/tex]. That put a few more alphas in on the right.

kdv said:
This does not make sense. What does [itex]1_\alpha[/itex] mean? Or what is [itex](h_{00})_\alpha[/itex]??
Sorry, another typo...that should be [tex](-1+\epsilon h_{00}+O(\epsilon^2))_{ , \alpha}[/tex], as in partial derivative of all that with respect to the alpha coordinate. Then [itex]1_\alpha[/itex] becomes 0, and [itex](h_{00})_\alpha[/itex] is the partial with respect to alpha.

kdv said:
I am not sure about the fastest way to proceed but if you do it the long way, why not find [itex]g^{\mu \nu }[/itex] to first order? You should find easily that it is [itex]\eta^{\mu \nu} - \epsilon h^{\mu \nu}[/itex]
You're correct, in fact that fact is a different question on the assignment that I did solve, but I wasn't sure what the [tex]h^{\mu \nu}[/tex] would do, because the final solution didn't have anything in it of that form.
 
aman02 said:
Sorry, yes, that is what I meant.
Then it is easier to use the notation [tex]g_{\alpha \beta} = \eta_{\alpha \beta} + \epsilon h_{\alpha \beta}[/tex] for all the components or if you give only the spatial part, use latin indices (i,j,k)

I may have skipped a step - I noticed the only non-zero elements in [tex]g_{ab}[/tex] and [tex]g^{ab}[/tex] are those on the diagonal, so I let [tex]l=\alpha[/tex]. That put a few more alphas in on the right.

why do you assume that g has only diagonal elements?
In any case, even if it was true, you should never write something with three identical indices!

Sorry, another typo...that should be [tex](-1+\epsilon h_{00}+O(\epsilon^2))_{ , \alpha}[/tex], as in partial derivative of all that with respect to the alpha coordinate. Then [itex]1_\alpha[/itex] becomes 0, and [itex](h_{00})_\alpha[/itex] is the partial with respect to alpha.


You're correct, in fact that fact is a different question on the assignment that I did solve, but I wasn't sure what the [tex]h^{\mu \nu}[/tex] would do, because the final solution didn't have anything in it of that form.

Well, if you rewrite your Christoffel symbols with the correct notation for the indices it will be easier to help with the remaining steps.
 
Alright, thanks for the help kdv - I've gone through with correct indices and reduced the problem to showing spatial derivatives dominate time derivatives...why would this be true?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K