Proving Non-linear Wave Equation for Riemann Tensor

dman12
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am working through Hughston and Tod "An introduction to General Relativity" and have gotten stuck on their exercise [7.7] which asks to prove the following non- linear wave equation for the Riemann tensor in an empty space:

eeRabcd = 2Raedf Rbecf − 2Raecf Rbedf − Rabef Rcdef

I have started from the Bianchi identity:

Rabcd;e + Rabec;d + Rabde;c = 0

To give:

ee Rabcd = -∇ed Rabec - ∇ec Rabde

But I don't know what to do to get the RHS into the correct form. Do I use the fact that we are considering empty space such that the Ricci tensor vanishes, Rab = 0 ?

Any help on how to prove this relation would be very much appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Interesting. If you're told to prove it in empty space, then clearly you're going to need the fact that the Ricci tensor vanishes.

It seems sensible to imagine that you might need the Bianchi identity at some point, since you're differentiating the Riemann tensor, but this looks to me more like something you'd do for simplification at the very end.

None of the possible ingredients you've suggested so far will result in a curvature polynomial of the form R...R...

The only method of attack that I can think of would be to write out the Riemann tensor in terms of the Christoffel symbols. I'm sure this would work, but I imagine it would be really, really ugly.

You could go to Riemann normal coordinates, which might simplify things somewhat.
 
I am with bcrowell on this one, you do not have enough information to efficiently create your proof. Look back and see what you can find that may help, otherwise we can not help you much more than that.
 
dman12 said:
I have started from the Bianchi identity:

Rabcd;e + Rabec;d + Rabde;c = 0

To give:

ee Rabcd = -∇ed Rabec - ∇ec Rabde

But I don't know what to do to get the RHS into the correct form. Do I use the fact that we are considering empty space such that the Ricci tensor vanishes, Rab = 0 ?

Any help on how to prove this relation would be very much appreciated!

This is the right place to start. Now manipulate the RHS of that to give expressions with commutators of covariant derivatives, ##[\nabla_a, \nabla_b]##. Finally, use the fact that the commutator of covariant derivatives gives you a Riemann tensor:

$$[\nabla_a, \nabla_b] V^c = R^c{}_{dab} V^d,$$
etc.
 
  • Like
Likes bcrowell
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...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top