Quick tetrad/vierbein question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter unchained1978
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and manipulation of vierbein fields, particularly focusing on the notation involving repeated indices, such as e^{aμ}e^{μ}_{a}. Participants are exploring the implications of these terms in the context of curvature tensors and their contractions, with a focus on the distinctions between covariant and contravariant indices.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the meaning of terms like e^{aμ}e^{μ}_{a} due to the repeated Greek indices.
  • Another participant references Wald's notation, suggesting that Latin indices indicate vector or one-form status while Greek indices denote specific basis vectors.
  • A participant mentions that the term arose while decomposing the curvature tensor and questions its legitimacy, noting that it cannot be eliminated.
  • One participant asserts that if the term is valid, it simplifies to eμa eμa = δμμ = 4.
  • Another participant suggests that the notation may be incorrect if it does not properly distinguish between covariant and contravariant indices, proposing that e^{\mu}_{~a} e^{\mu a} is wrong, while e^{\mu}_{~a} e_{\mu}^{~a} is correct.
  • In response, a participant argues against the typo explanation, claiming that the term represents the inner product of a vierbein field with itself.
  • Another participant counters that the 'inner product' can still be expressed in terms of the metric, implying that the previous statement about index usage remains valid.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the interpretation of the repeated indices and the validity of the notation. Some believe it is a legitimate term representing an inner product, while others argue it may be incorrect based on index conventions.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached a consensus on the correct interpretation of the notation involving repeated indices, and there are unresolved questions about the proper use of covariant versus contravariant indices in this context.

unchained1978
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
In working with these vierbein fields I've come across these terms such as [itex]e^{aμ}[/itex][itex]e^{μ}_{a}[/itex] where the e's are vierbein fields. The thing is I have no idea what this represents because of the repeated μ's.You can rewrite this with the local lorentz metric to raise and lower the a's and b's but you're still left with identical greek indices. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you give a reference to where you see this?
 
I think Wald will use, for example, the notation [itex](e_\mu)^a(e_\mu)_a[/itex] I wasn't able to figure that out too well either.

I think the latin index should just tell you that it's a vector or a one form, and the Greek index should tell you which basis vector he's talking about.
 
George Jones said:
Could you give a reference to where you see this?

I was decomposing the curvature tensor in terms of vierbeins, and when I contracted it with the vierbein I ended up with a term like the one mentioned. I can't get rid of it.
 
If it arose legitimately, the value is eμa eμa = δμμ = 4.
 
It must have been a typo or something, both Lorentz and world indices must be used repeatedly, only if summed over and summation should be <covariant vs contravariant>, so that

[tex]e^{\mu}_{~a} e^{\mu a}[/tex]

is wrong, while[tex]e^{\mu}_{~a} e_{\mu}^{~a}[/tex]

is correct.
 
Not to disagree with you, but I've come at this problem a few different ways now and I always get stuck on the same term. It's not a typo, it somehow represents the inner product of a vierbein field with itself.
 
The 'inner product' is still expressible in terms of the metric, therefore covariant, so that my statement from point 6 applies.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K