Hello all, this is my first time posting on this forum, so to start with, it's good to meet you all and thanks in advance for the help!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

My question is as follows. Suppose I have two semi-riemannian manifolds of dimension n and a conformal map between them [tex] \phi : (M,g) \longrightarrow (\tilde{M} ,\tilde{g} ) [/tex] so that [tex] \Omega (a)^2 g_{\mu \nu} (a) = (\phi^* \tilde{g})_{\mu \nu} (a) = \tilde{g}_{ij} (\phi (a)) \nabla_\mu \phi^i \nabla_\nu \phi^j[/tex]as well as a conformal killing field on [itex]\tilde{M}[/itex][tex] \tilde{\nabla}_\nu \tilde{X}_\mu +\tilde{\nabla}_\mu \tilde{X}_\nu = \tilde{\kappa} \tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}.[/tex]

Now I would have expected that the pullback of this field[tex] X_\mu (a) = \tilde{X}_i (\phi (a))\nabla_\mu \phi^i [/tex]would be a conformal killing field on [itex] M [/itex], but I'm having a hard time showing this. I started by pulling back the tilded conformal killing equation above:[tex] \tilde{\kappa} (\phi (a)) \tilde{g}_{ij} (\phi (a)) \nabla_\mu \phi^i \nabla_\nu \phi^j = (\tilde{\nabla}_j \tilde{X}_i ) (\phi (a)) \nabla_\mu \phi^i \nabla_\nu \phi^j +(\tilde{\nabla}_i \tilde{X}_j ) (\phi (a)) \nabla_\mu \phi^i \nabla_\nu \phi^j . [/tex]

The left hand side looks nice since its just [itex]\kappa \Omega^2 g_{\mu \nu}[/itex], but the right side doesn't seem to work out since the Leibniz rule gives [tex] \nabla_\mu X_\nu = \nabla_\mu (\tilde{X}_j (\phi ) \nabla_\nu \phi^j) = (\tilde{\nabla}_i \tilde{X}_j )(\phi ) \nabla_\mu \phi^i \nabla_\nu \phi^j + \tilde{X}_j(\phi) \nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu \phi^j,[/tex] the last term being unwanted as it gives in total[tex] \kappa \Omega^2 g_{\mu \nu} = \nabla_\nu X_\mu + \nabla_\mu X_\nu -2 \tilde{X}_j (\phi) \nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu \phi^j,[/tex] which isn't quite the conformal killing equation.

Long story short, it seems like the pullback of a conformal killing field via a conformal transformation is not a conformal killing field because the pullback of a derivative is not the derivative of a pullback. I'm sure I've done something wrong, and if anyone could point it out that would be great.

Everything's conformal above due to the problem I'm working on right now, but note the same reasoning would show the pullback of a regular old killing field via an isometry would not necessarily give a killing field, and that at the very least sounds patently ridiculous.

Sorry for the lengthy post. I just figured if I gave all the details it'd be easier to figure out where I erred. Thanks for the help!

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Pullback of Conformal Killing Fields

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - Pullback Conformal Killing | Date |
---|---|

I Conformal Related metrics | Nov 12, 2017 |

A Pullback, Pushforward: why? | Mar 8, 2017 |

Conditions for Solution to Pullback Equation on Forms? | Jan 23, 2014 |

Exterior differentiation and pullback | Oct 3, 2013 |

Computing Pullback of 1-Form | Jul 23, 2013 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**