Setting up a field theory (contra/covariant)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the setup of a field theory, specifically in the context of the Reissner-Nordstrom solution to the Einstein Field Equations (EFE). Participants are exploring the definitions and conventions for tensors, particularly the field strength tensor, and the implications of using contravariant and covariant indices.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the construction of the field strength tensor and the choice between contravariant and covariant indices. Questions are raised about the conventions used in defining tensors and the implications of index manipulation in general relativity.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the nature of tensor indices and the rules for raising and lowering them using the metric. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of covariant derivatives and the properties of antisymmetric tensors, but multiple interpretations and clarifications are still being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions regarding the nature of indices in tensors and the role of the metric in manipulating these indices. The discussion also touches on the distinction between tensors and non-tensorial objects like Christoffel symbols.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
I'm trying to go through the Reissner-Nordstrom solution to the EFE's and since I'm trying to do this correctly, I find myself running into trouble about how to define everything.

I set my coordinates up as [tex]x^a = x^a(r,\theta,\phi,ct)[/tex]

Now, I need to use the fact that [tex]\nabla^b F_{ab} = 0[/tex] as I am looking for solutions in source-free space. However, the construction of the field strength tensor gets me. I'm attempting to follow Stephani's convention and he has his field strength tensor as

[tex]F^{ab} = \[<br /> \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> 0 & {B_z } & { - B_y } & {E_x } \\<br /> { - B_z } & 0 & {B_x } & {E_y } \\<br /> {B_y } & { - B_x } & 0 & {E_z } \\<br /> { - E_x } & { - E_y } & { - E_z } & 0 \\<br /> \end{array}} \right)<br /> \][/tex]

Now, the question I have is how would one know that this is how I should setup my field strength tensor? More to the point, why is it [tex]F^{ab}[/tex] and not [tex]F_{ab}[/tex]? My instinct tells me that you should simply define all of your tensors to start with either contravariantly or covariantly (ie. [tex]x^a, u^a, g^{ab}, F^{ab}, T^{ab}[/tex] etc.) and you work your geometry in with the covariant guys. Is this the right path to take?

Also, to what extent are you allowed to do things like [tex]A^{ab}B_{cabd} = A_{ab}B_c^{\;ab}_d[/tex]? It seems like in general you shouldn't be able to do that because, say in B, your a,b indices could be things in partial derivatives and your metric would have to act on them. On the other hand, I see things like [tex]F^{ab}F_{ab}[/tex] (the Maxwell field tensors) and know that it should equal [tex]F_{ab}F^{ab}[/tex]. Is it the fact that it's a scalar that makes them equal? Is it the anti-symmetry of [tex]F^{ab}[/tex]?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
you can raise and lower indices using the metric so it doesn't really matter whether you define everything covariantly or contravariantly i.e.

with metric [tex]g_{ab}[/tex] and inverse metric [tex]g^{ab}[/tex]

[tex]F^{ab} = g^{ac} g^{bd} F_{cd}[/tex]

dummy indices you can lower and raise at your convenience in GR as long as they're in alternating positions
 
Your a,b indices cannot be partial derivatives, since then the object in question wouldn't be a tensor under general coordinate transformations. They must be covariant derivatives, and since the covariant derivative of the metric is zero, you can raise and lower them with the metric without problems. Since [tex]F^{ab}[/tex] is antisymmetric in a and b, the Christoffel symbols actually cancel and the covariant derivatives reduce to partial, but that is a special case.
 
What about something like the Christoffel symbols? They're constructed using partials. So I would think [tex]\Gamma_a^{\;b}_{\;c}A^a[/tex] is not necessarily the same as [tex]\Gamma^{ab}_{\;\;c}A_a[/tex].
 
Christoffel symbols aren't tensors so you can't raise and lower their indices with the metric
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K