Solving Tensor Calculus Question from Schutz Intro to GR

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Schutz's "Introduction to General Relativity," specifically focusing on finding a coordinate transformation to a local inertial frame from a weak field Newtonian metric tensor. Participants explore the validity of a proposed tensor equation and the implications of coordinate transformations in the context of tensor calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the equation $$x^{\alpha '} = (\delta^\alpha_\beta + L^\alpha_\beta)x^\beta$$ is a valid tensor equation, noting that the superscripts do not balance as expected in tensor calculus.
  • Another participant asserts that the transformation is a linear change of coordinates and not a tensor equation, stating that coordinates themselves are not tensors.
  • A participant emphasizes that knowing the components of the metric is generally insufficient for determining coordinate transformations, suggesting that additional information or physical intuition is needed.
  • One participant points out that the relationship between the coordinates can be expressed as $$\frac{\partial x'^{\alpha'}}{\partial x^\beta} = \delta^\alpha_\beta + L^\alpha_\beta$$ and discusses how this could impose restrictions on ##L## based on the transformation rules for the metric tensor.
  • Another participant mentions that since ##L^\alpha_\beta## is a function of the Newtonian potential ##\phi##, it requires differentiation, leading to a more complex expression involving derivatives.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of contraction in tensor calculus, with one participant questioning whether contraction is a tensor operation or merely a compact way of writing equations.
  • A later reply clarifies that summing over indices does not necessarily indicate tensor expressions, using the Lorentz transformation as an example to illustrate that transformation coefficients are not tensors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the transformation and the validity of the proposed tensor equation. There is no consensus on whether the equation is a valid tensor equation or how to interpret the transformation coefficients.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of relying solely on metric components for coordinate transformations, indicating that multiple coordinate systems can satisfy the same metric requirements. The discussion also touches on the need for differentiation of the transformation coefficients and the implications of contraction in tensor calculus.

shahbaznihal
Messages
52
Reaction score
2
I am doing a problem from Schutz, Introduction to general relativity.The question asks you to find a coordinate transformation to a local inertial frame from a weak field Newtonian metric tensor ##(ds^2=-(1+2\phi)dt^2+(1-2\phi)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2))##. I looked at the solution from a manual and it has the following equation,$$x^{\alpha '} = (\delta^\alpha_\beta + L^\alpha_\beta)x^\beta$$.
##L^\alpha_\beta## is a function of the Newtonian potential ##\phi##.

My question is: Is this a valid tensor equation?

The transformation is motivated by the idea that when ##\phi## is zero then you already have a locally inertial frame hence ##L^\alpha_\beta## are all zero and ##x^{\alpha '} = x^{\alpha}## which is very understandable. But is the equation ##x^{\alpha '} = (\delta^\alpha_\beta + L^\alpha_\beta)x^\beta## symbolically correct (because the superscripts don't balance out like they normally do in tensor calculus)? But may be if ##L^\alpha_\beta## is not a tensor then it does not have to obey those principles of tensor calculus.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is a linear change of coordinates, not a tensor equation. Coordinates are not tensors.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: shahbaznihal
Orodruin said:
It is a linear change of coordinates, not a tensor equation. Coordinates are not tensors.

Hence the rules of tensor calculus do not apply. This is just some equation where symbols do not have tensorial meanings.

But then if you want to transform from one coordinate system to another, how do you know how the coordinates transform? Given you only know the metric tensors in the two frame? Or it can't be done that way and you need some additional information about how the two frames are related? Perhaps some physical intuition like in this problem where the related them by the idea that if ##\phi=0## then you already have a locally inertial frame. Which was then used to derive the equation ##x^{\alpha '} = (\delta^\alpha_\beta + L^\alpha_\beta)x^\beta##.
 
Last edited:
shahbaznihal said:
But then if you want to transform from one coordinate system to another, how do you know how the coordinates transform? Given you only know the metric tensors in the two frame?
Just knowing the components of the metric is generally not sufficient because there can be several coordinate systems satisfying the same requirement. However, note that with your ansatz of a linear relationship between the coordinates, you have
$$
\frac{\partial x'^{\alpha'}}{\partial x^\beta} = \delta^\alpha_\beta + L^\alpha_\beta.
$$
This should let you find some restrictions on ##L## based on the transformation rules for the metric tensor.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: shahbaznihal
That is how the solution proceeds as well. Actually, since ##L^\alpha_\beta## is a function of Newtonian potential ##\phi (x,y,z)## then it also needs to be differentiated which gives, $$\frac{\partial x^{\alpha '}}{\partial x^\gamma}=\delta^{\alpha}_\gamma + L^{\alpha}_\gamma + L^\alpha_{\beta, \gamma} x^\beta$$ But yeah, that is the point of the solution.
 
Orodruin said:
Just knowing the components of the metric is generally not sufficient because there can be several coordinate systems satisfying the same requirement. However, note that with your ansatz of a linear relationship between the coordinates, you have
$$
\frac{\partial x'^{\alpha'}}{\partial x^\beta} = \delta^\alpha_\beta + L^\alpha_\beta.
$$
This should let you find some restrictions on ##L## based on the transformation rules for the metric tensor.

But in deriving the above equations, the idea of contraction is used. So the coordinates are not tensors but their derivatives are. Correct?

Is the idea of contraction a tensor operation? Or is it just a way of compactly writing a bunch of equations i.e. $$f^\alpha_\beta = T^\alpha_\gamma T^\gamma_\beta$$ is just a set of functions with terms quadratic is some function ##T##?
 
shahbaznihal said:
But in deriving the above equations, the idea of contraction is used. So the coordinates are not tensors but their derivatives are. Correct?
No, this is not correct. Summing over two indices does not necessarily mean that you have tensor expressions. Consider the Lorentz transformation ##x'^{\alpha'} = \Lambda^{\alpha'}_\beta x^\beta##. The transformation coefficients ##\Lambda^{\alpha'}_\beta## are not tensors, they are coefficients that tell you how the coordinates are related.

The derivative of a coordinate with respect to some curve parameter is (by definition) the components of a tangent vector. The partial derivatives of some set of coordinates with respect to another set of coordinates are the transformation coefficients that tell you how tensor components transform between the systems. They are not by themselves tensors.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: shahbaznihal
Thanks a bunch for the greatly useful discussion :)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K