Reversing Indices in Contractions: Can it be Done?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the manipulation of indices in covariant derivatives and contractions, specifically whether one can reverse indices in contractions involving gradient operators and vector fields. The scope includes theoretical aspects of differential geometry and tensor calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a transformation of the expression involving covariant derivatives and contractions, questioning if it is valid to reverse indices.
  • Another participant asserts that the connection must be metric compatible for the transformation to hold.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the interpretation of the left-hand side (LHS) of the equation, specifically about the action of gradient operators on vector fields versus each other.
  • There is confusion expressed about the application of the chain rule in the context of covariant derivatives and how it relates to the operations being performed.
  • A participant questions the meaning of applying one operator to another and emphasizes the need for a proper sequence of operations.
  • Another participant suggests that the covariant derivative of a specific tensor can be expressed in terms of partial derivatives if the connection is symmetric.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of how covariant derivatives interact with each other and with vector fields. There is no consensus on the validity of reversing indices in contractions or the application of the chain rule in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of operator interactions, the dependence on the properties of the connection (e.g., symmetry, metric compatibility), and the unresolved nature of the mathematical steps involved in the transformations discussed.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
Suppose I have something like
[tex]\left( \nabla_\mu \nabla_\beta - \nabla_\beta \nabla_\mu \right) V^\mu = R_{\nu \beta} V^\nu[/tex]
Can since all the terms involving ##\mu## on the left and ##\nu## on the right are contractions, can I simply do:
[tex]\left( \nabla^\mu \nabla_\beta - \nabla_\beta \nabla^\mu \right) V_{\mu} = R^\nu_{\beta} V_{\nu}[/tex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As long as the connection is metric compatible.
 
Orodruin said:
As long as the connection is metric compatible.

But my concern is that in the first term on the LHS, the gradient operator is acting on the gradient operator via ##\nabla_\mu (\nabla_\beta) V^\mu##, and not on the vector ##V^\mu##. I thought for contractions, these have to be acting on one another?
 
unscientific said:
But my concern is that in the first term on the LHS, the gradient operator is acting on the gradient operator via ##\nabla_\mu (\nabla_\beta) V^\mu##, and not on the vector ##V^\mu##. I thought for contractions, these have to be acting on one another?
No, this is not how to interpret the LHS. The operators are each acting on ##V^\mu##, one after the other.
 
Orodruin said:
No, this is not how to interpret the LHS. The operators are each acting on ##V^\mu##, one after the other.
Ok, now I'm confused. I thought the chain rule applies:
[tex]\nabla^\mu \left( \nabla_\mu A_\nu \right) = \nabla^\mu \left( \nabla_\mu\right) A_\nu + \nabla_\mu \nabla^\mu A_\nu[/tex]
 
Orodruin said:
No, this is not how to interpret the LHS. The operators are each acting on ##V^\mu##, one after the other.
If I have something like ##F_{\mu \nu} = \nabla_\mu A_\nu - \nabla_\nu A_\mu##, what will ##\nabla^\mu F_{\mu \nu}## look like?
 
What do you mean by ##\nabla_\mu(\nabla^\mu)##? This is an operator applied to an operator. The only way to make sense of this is to apply the right operator to something first and then apply the left to the result.
 
unscientific said:
If I have something like ##F_{\mu \nu} = \nabla_\mu A_\nu - \nabla_\nu A_\mu##, what will ##\nabla^\mu F_{\mu \nu}## look like?
You should write out this covariant derivative first in terms of F, and then in that expression write out F in terms of A. If your connection is symmetric, F can be expressed in terms of partial derivatives only.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
877
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
959
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K