Stokes theorem under covariant derivaties?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Stokes' theorem in the context of General Relativity (GR) and covariant derivatives. Specifically, it examines the validity of the equation \(\int_{\Sigma}\sqrt{-g}\nabla_{\mu} V^{\mu} d^nx= \int_{\partial\Sigma}\sqrt{-g} V^{\mu} d^{n-1}x\) and the interpretation of the differential form \(d^{n-1}x\). The participants assert that the integral reduces to a surface term, contingent on the properties of the covariant derivative and the Christoffel symbols. The discussion highlights the necessity of understanding differential forms and their role in generalizing Stokes' theorem.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity and covariant derivatives
  • Familiarity with differential forms and exterior derivatives
  • Knowledge of the metric determinant \(\sqrt{-g}\)
  • Proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of covariant derivatives in General Relativity
  • Learn about differential forms and their applications in Stokes' theorem
  • Explore the role of the Christoffel symbols in GR
  • Review advanced texts on differential geometry for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on General Relativity, differential geometry, and mathematical physics. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to understand the intricacies of Stokes' theorem in curved spacetime.

tim_lou
Messages
682
Reaction score
1
in my GR book, it claims that integral of a covariant divergence reduces to a surface term. I'm not sure if I see this...

So, is it true that:
[tex]\int_{\Sigma}\sqrt{-g}\nabla_{\mu} V^{\mu} d^nx= \int_{\partial\Sigma}\sqrt{-g} V^{\mu} d^{n-1}x[/tex]

if so, how do I make sense of the [itex]d^{n-1}x[/itex] term? would it be just a differential form?? so what about the following?

[tex]\int_{\Sigma} \nabla_{\mu} V^{\mu} d\omega=\int_{\partial \Sigma} \sqrt{-g} V^{\mu} \omega[/tex]

is it true? It certainly doesn't seem so to me... since the proof of stokes' theorem heavily rely on the similarities between taking the boundary of a simplex and taking the derivative of a form. This certainly does not seem to be the case with covariant derivatives. Perhaps it is only true with taking divergences. How do I go by proving/reasoning it? (simply saying things in flat space generalize in things in curved space with ; replaced by , doesn't do it for me)edit: i just can't figure out what the heck is wrong with the latex... someone might have to fix it for me. (something is clearly messed up about the current latex system... seriously how can my d^{n-1} x term have any syntax error?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
One way to demonstrate the specific example you raised is via

V^{\mu}_{;\mu} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \left( V^\mu \sqrt{-g} \right)_{,\mu}

(tex is playing up for me too.) You can prove this result from the definitions of the covariant derivative and the Christoffel symbols. The factors of \sqrt{-g} appear in just the right places that the integral will reduce to the standard Gauss' law in terms of partial derivatives.

The Stokes' theorem generalises to something stated in terms of differential forms and exterior derivatives. I don't know the subject well enough to recommend any particular books, but perhaps you can find something in a book on differential geometry.

Regards,
Dave



tim_lou said:
in my GR book, it claims that integral of a covariant divergence reduces to a surface term. I'm not sure if I see this...

So, is it true that:
[tex]\int_{\Sigma}\sqrt{-g}\nabla_{\mu} V^{\mu} d^nx= \int_{\partial\Sigma}\sqrt{-g} V^{\mu} d^{n-1}x[/tex]

if so, how do I make sense of the [itex]d^{n-1}x[/itex] term? would it be just a differential form?? so what about the following?

[tex]\int_{\Sigma} \nabla_{\mu} V^{\mu} d\omega=\int_{\partial \Sigma} \sqrt{-g} V^{\mu} \omega[/tex]

is it true? It certainly doesn't seem so to me... since the proof of stokes' theorem heavily rely on the similarities between taking the boundary of a simplex and taking the derivative of a form. This certainly does not seem to be the case with covariant derivatives. Perhaps it is only true with taking divergences. How do I go by proving/reasoning it? (simply saying things in flat space generalize in things in curved space with ; replaced by , doesn't do it for me)


edit: i just can't figure out what the heck is wrong with the latex... someone might have to fix it for me. (something is clearly messed up about the current latex system... seriously how can my d^{n-1} x term have any syntax error?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K