joda80
- 18
- 0
Hi All,
I think I have confused myself ... perhaps you can tell me where my reasoning is wrong. The idea is that in general coordinates the partial derivative of a vector,
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j},
is not a tensor because an additional term arises (which is the motivation for defining the covariant derivative).
However, when I do the math that additional term always drops out as demonstrated below. I'm pretty sure my math is wrong, but I don't see where. Maybe you can help out.
Here's my thinking:
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial }{\partial x^j} \left[\frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r}\bar{A^r} \right].
Applying the product rule,
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial^2 x^i}{\partial x^j \partial a^r} \bar{A}^r<br /> + \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial x^j}.
Switching the order of the partial derivatives in the first term results in
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial}{\partial a^r}\left[ \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial x^j}\right] \bar{A}^r<br /> + \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial x^j},
which we may write as
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial}{\partial a^r}\left[\delta^i_j \right] \bar{A}^r + \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial x^j}.
Since the unit tensor,
\delta^i_j
is constant, its derivative is zero, so the first term vanishes and we get, after applying the chain rule to the second term,
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r}\frac{\partial a^q}{\partial x^j} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial a^q},
which would imply that the lhs actually is a second-order tensor, which I think is wrong -- but where did I make the mistake?
Thanks so much for your help!
Johannes
I think I have confused myself ... perhaps you can tell me where my reasoning is wrong. The idea is that in general coordinates the partial derivative of a vector,
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j},
is not a tensor because an additional term arises (which is the motivation for defining the covariant derivative).
However, when I do the math that additional term always drops out as demonstrated below. I'm pretty sure my math is wrong, but I don't see where. Maybe you can help out.
Here's my thinking:
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial }{\partial x^j} \left[\frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r}\bar{A^r} \right].
Applying the product rule,
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial^2 x^i}{\partial x^j \partial a^r} \bar{A}^r<br /> + \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial x^j}.
Switching the order of the partial derivatives in the first term results in
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial}{\partial a^r}\left[ \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial x^j}\right] \bar{A}^r<br /> + \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial x^j},
which we may write as
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial}{\partial a^r}\left[\delta^i_j \right] \bar{A}^r + \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial x^j}.
Since the unit tensor,
\delta^i_j
is constant, its derivative is zero, so the first term vanishes and we get, after applying the chain rule to the second term,
\frac{\partial A^i}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial a^r}\frac{\partial a^q}{\partial x^j} \frac{\partial \bar{A}^r}{\partial a^q},
which would imply that the lhs actually is a second-order tensor, which I think is wrong -- but where did I make the mistake?
Thanks so much for your help!
Johannes