Raising/Lowering Metric Indices: Explained

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWCY
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Perturbation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the process of raising and lowering indices of tensors using metrics in the context of differential geometry. Specifically, the participants clarify that the operation utilizes the background metric, denoted as ##f_{\mu \nu}##, rather than the perturbed metric ##h_{\mu \nu}##. The consensus is that while both ##G_{ \ \nu}^{\mu} = f^{\mu \nu '} G_{\nu ' \nu }## and ##G_{ \ \nu}^{\mu} = g^{\mu \nu '} G_{\nu ' \nu }## can be expressed, the former is preferred for clarity in linearized gravity. References to Geroch's 1972 General Relativity notes and Wald's text provide foundational insights into these operations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tensor notation and operations
  • Familiarity with differential geometry concepts
  • Knowledge of linearized gravity principles
  • Basic grasp of metric tensors and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Geroch's 1972 General Relativity notes, particularly Section 39 on Linearization
  • Examine Wald's text on Linearized Gravity, focusing on Sections 4.4 and 7.5
  • Learn about the implications of perturbations in metric tensors
  • Explore the relationship between background and perturbed metrics in gravitational theories
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on general relativity, tensor calculus, and differential geometry. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of metric perturbations and tensor operations.

WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
15
TL;DR
What are the rules?
If I have a metric of the form ##g_{\mu \nu} = f_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}## where ##f_{\mu \nu}## is the background metric and ##h_{\mu \nu}## the perturbation, how do I raise and lower indices of tensors?

For instance, I was told that ##G_{ \ \nu}^{\mu} = f^{\mu \nu '} G_{\nu ' \nu }##. But shouldn't ##G_{ \ \nu}^{\mu} = g^{\mu \nu '} G_{\nu ' \nu }## be true as well? What exactly are the "rules" behind these operations?

PS If the answer is related to differential geometry, could I be also be pointed to a (introductory) source that explains it?

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You raise and lower indices using the metric ##g## with upper or lower indices as appropriate. However, if you are perturbing the metric then the components of ##h## are small compared to those of ##f##, and components of ##(h)^2## and derivatives thereof are negligible.

I would imagine that if you expand out both tensors in ##g^{\mu\nu'}G_{\nu'\nu}## in terms of ##f## and ##h## you will find that it is equal to ##f^{\mu\nu'}G_{\nu'\nu}## plus terms like ##h^{\mu\nu'}h_{\nu'\nu}## and derivatives thereof, which you would neglect.
 
First realize that "raising" and "lowering" of indices are really just shortcuts:
Given v^a, then v_b \equiv v^a g_{ab}.
So, the real object is v^a g_{ab}, but it gets tiring to write that all of the time.
So, a convention is adopted to define the shortcut v_b.

So, v^a g_{ab}=v^a f_{ab}+v^a h_{ab}.
Which term do want to declare a shortcut for?The following references suggest using the "background" unperturbed metric (in your notation, f_{ab}).From the following reference, a scan of Geroch's 1972 General Relativity notes [maybe posted by Ashtekar?]
http://www.gravity.psu.edu/links/general_relativity_notes.pdfSee Section 39. Linearization (page 143 [pdf page 145]).
On page 144 [pdf page 146] between equations (156) and (157), Geroch declares
Geroch said:
We shall hereafter raise and lower indices with g_{ab}, the unperturbed metric".
which makes sense because your unperturbed metric likely corresponds to an exact solution [not necessarily Minkowski] that you know about, rather than some perturbed-metric.

However, the notation in those notes might be a little confusing since
in the first paragraph of that section,
he started by writing g_{ab}=\eta_{ab}+\gamma_{ab} as an example when perturbing from Minkowski spacetime.
But between equations (153) and (154), he essentially does the following:

Using a family of metrics g_{ab}(\lambda), where \lambda \in[0,1)
the perturbed metric is [in general]
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> g_{ab}(\lambda)<br /> &amp;=<br /> \left(g_{ab}(\lambda)\right|_{\lambda=0}+\lambda\ \frac{d}{d\lambda}\left(g_{ab}(\lambda)\right|_{\lambda=0}\\<br /> &amp;=<br /> g_{ab}(0)+\lambda\ \frac{d}{d\lambda}\left(g_{ab}(\lambda)\right|_{\lambda=0}<br /> \end{align*}<br />
in terms of the unperturbed metric g_{ab}(0) (which he now calls "g_{ab}&quot; ... between (153) and (154).)

For another reference, look at Wald's text [which is influenced by Geroch, as noted in the preface]
  • Section 4.4 Linearized Gravity: The Newtonian Limit and Gravitational Radiation,
    Wald said:
    g_{ab} =\eta_{ab} + \gamma_{ab}
    ...
    In order not to have \gamma_{ab} hidden in a raised or lowered index,
    it is convenient to raise and lower tensor indices with \eta_{ab} and \eta^{ab} rather than g_{ab} and g^{ab} . We will adopt this notational convention for the remainder of this section with one exception :
    The tensor g^{ab} itself will still denote the inverse metric, not \eta^{ac}\eta^{bd}g_{cd}. It should be noted that in the linear
    approximation we have
    g^{ab}= \eta^{ab} -\gamma^{ab} (4 .4 .2)
    since the composition of the right-hand sides of equations (4 .4.1) and (4 .4 .2) differs
    from the identity operator only by terms quadratic in \gamma_{ab}.
  • Section 7.5 on Perturbations,
    Wald said:
    g_{ab} = {}^0 g_{ab}+\gamma_{ab}
    ...
    (between Eq 7.5.14 and 7.5.15)
    Since all quantities aside from \gamma_{ab}, now refer only to the background metric {}^0 g_{ab}, we
    shall in the following drop the superscript zero on the background metric and its
    derivative operator, and we shall use the background metric g_{ab} and its inverse g^{ab} to raise and lower indices.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K