Tensor differentiation. Help with a step.

Sagar_C
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
I am not very used to jugglery of tensors...I am learning it all now-a-days...I am trying to read a paper...and stuck at a point..:( ...It will be of great help if someone could help me get at eqn (34) from eqn (32) (cf. attached.) d/d\tau=u^\alpha\partial_\alpha (I think) and semi-colon is for covariant derivative and "[]" are for cyclic permutation of indices just like in Bianci relation.

P.S.: Hope I am not breaking any forum rules as this probably doesn't count as homework.
 

Attachments

  • screenshot_129.jpg
    screenshot_129.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 440
Physics news on Phys.org
Sagar_C said:
I am not very used to jugglery of tensors...I am learning it all now-a-days...I am trying to read a paper...and stuck at a point..:( ...It will be of great help if someone could help me get at eqn (34) from eqn (32) (cf. attached.) d/d\tau=u^\alpha\partial_\alpha (I think) and semi-colon is for covariant derivative and "[]" are for cyclic permutation of indices just like in Bianci relation.

P.S.: Hope I am not breaking any forum rules as this probably doesn't count as homework.

Hmm. It doesn't seem to be a very big gap.

If Q is a function of coordinates, then \dfrac{d}{d\tau} Q = \dfrac{dx^{\gamma}}{d\tau} \nabla_{\gamma} Q. So in the particular case Q = w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}, we use the product rule to get
\dfrac{d}{d\tau}(w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}) = <br /> ((\nabla_{\gamma} w_{\alpha \beta}) \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta} (\nabla_{\gamma} \xi^{\alpha}) \eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha} (\nabla_{\gamma} \eta^{\beta})) \dfrac{dx^{\gamma}}{d\tau}

Using the semicolon notation, and using \dfrac{dx^{\gamma}}{d\tau}= u^{\gamma}, this becomes:

\dfrac{d}{d\tau}(w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}) = <br /> (w_{\alpha \beta ; \gamma}\ \xi^{\alpha}\ \eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta}\ \xi^{\alpha}_{; \gamma}\ \eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta}\ \xi^{\alpha}\ \eta^{\beta}_{; \gamma}) u^{\gamma}

The last step doesn't have anything to do with differentiation; it's just a fact about tensors: If w_{\alpha \beta ; \gamma} is anti-symmetric in the first two indices, then w_{\alpha \beta ; \gamma} = 3 w_{[\alpha \beta ; \gamma]} - w_{\gamma \alpha ; \beta} - w_{\beta \gamma ; \alpha}
 
stevendaryl said:
Hmm. It doesn't seem to be a very big gap.

If Q is a function of coordinates, then \dfrac{d}{d\tau} Q = \dfrac{dx^{\gamma}}{d\tau} \nabla_{\gamma} Q. So in the particular case Q = w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}, we use the product rule to get
\dfrac{d}{d\tau}(w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}) = <br /> ((\nabla_{\gamma} w_{\alpha \beta}) \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta} (\nabla_{\gamma} \xi^{\alpha}) \eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha} (\nabla_{\gamma} \eta^{\beta})) \dfrac{dx^{\gamma}}{d\tau}

Using the semicolon notation, and using \dfrac{dx^{\gamma}}{d\tau}= u^{\gamma}, this becomes:

\dfrac{d}{d\tau}(w_{\alpha \beta} \xi^{\alpha}\eta^{\beta}) = <br /> (w_{\alpha \beta ; \gamma}\ \xi^{\alpha}\ \eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta}\ \xi^{\alpha}_{; \gamma}\ \eta^{\beta}<br /> + w_{\alpha \beta}\ \xi^{\alpha}\ \eta^{\beta}_{; \gamma}) u^{\gamma}

The last step doesn't have anything to do with differentiation; it's just a fact about tensors: If w_{\alpha \beta ; \gamma} is anti-symmetric in the first two indices, then w_{\alpha \beta ; \gamma} = 3 w_{[\alpha \beta ; \gamma]} - w_{\gamma \alpha ; \beta} - w_{\beta \gamma ; \alpha}

Many thanks. Actually, I should have been more specific. What I am really confused with is how covariant derivative appeared. The source of my confusion is that earlier in the text it seemed to be defined that "d/d\tau" is for simple derivative (see attachment 1) and "D/d\tau" is for the covariant one (attachment 2)! And all the time they are in general relativistic formalism...

P.S.: Is it because the term which is being differentiated is actually a scalar and so ordinary or covariant derivatives are just the same?
 

Attachments

  • screenshot_130.jpg
    screenshot_130.jpg
    5.3 KB · Views: 359
  • screenshot_131.jpg
    screenshot_131.jpg
    6.5 KB · Views: 368
Last edited:
Sagar_C said:
Many thanks. Actually, I should have been more specific. What I am really confused with is how covariant derivative appeared. The source of my confusion is that earlier in the text it seemed to be defined that "d/d\tau" is for simple derivative (see attachment 1) and "D/d\tau" is for the covariant one (attachment 2)! And all the time they are in general relativistic formalism...

P.S.: Is it because the term which is being differentiated is actually a scalar and so ordinary or covariant derivatives are just the same?

Right. If you are taking the derivative of a scalar quantity, then there is no difference between an ordinary derivative and a covariant derivative.
 
Edited: Wrong post! Sorry!
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top