A Two Covariant Derivatives (Chain Rule)?

Summary
Failed find information on the internet, really appreciate any help.
Summary: Failed find information on the internet, really appreciate any help.

Can someone tell me what is ∇ϒδ𝒆β? It seems to be equal to 𝒆μΓμβδ,ϒ+(𝒆νΓνμϒμβδ. Is this some sort of chain rule or is it by any means called anything?
 

Orodruin

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
15,844
5,842
What do you get when you try to compute it yourself?
 
What do you get when you try to compute it yourself?
At first look I just get the second term, so still trying to figure out where went wrong..
 

Orodruin

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
15,844
5,842
Please show your work.
 
Please show your work.
Okay I think where went wrong is I need to expand ∇ϒ(𝒆μΓμβδ), which now looks like something to apply chain rule to, and if I do that I get the answer except shouldn't the first term be 𝒆μΓμβδ;ϒ? The "," stands for partial derivative?
 

Orodruin

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
15,844
5,842
Yes, the , stands for a regular partial derivative. You are here including the basis vector ##e_\mu## in your notation. When you do that you are using a notation where anything multiplying it is just a scalar function. It holds that ##\nabla_a e_b = \Gamma_{ab}^c e_c## by definition. The covariant derivative is linear and satisfies the product rule (this is not chain rule)
$$
\nabla_a (fV) = V \nabla_a f + f \nabla_a V,
$$
where ##f## is a scalar field and ##V## is a vector. Note that ##\nabla_a f = \partial_a f## for any scalar field. In your case, therefore
$$
\nabla_a(\Gamma^c_{bd}e_c) = \Gamma^c_{bd} \nabla_a e_c + e_c \nabla_a \Gamma^c_{bd}
= \Gamma^c_{bd} \Gamma^f_{ac} e_f + e_c \Gamma^c_{bd,a}.
$$

Do not confuse this notation with the usual notation without writing out the vector basis, where we typically use the convention
$$
\nabla_a V^b \equiv (\nabla_a V)^b,
$$
i.e., the LHS is defined as the ##b##-component of ##\nabla_a V##. Actually writing out the basis in the RHS gives you
$$
(\nabla_a V)^b = [\nabla_a (V^c e_c)]^b = [V^c \nabla_a e_c]^b + [e_c \nabla_a V^c]^b
= V^c [\Gamma^d_{ac} e_d]^b + [V^c_{,a} e_c]^b
= V^c \Gamma^b_{ac} + V^b_{,a},
$$
since ##[e_c]^b = \delta^b_c##.
 
Yes, the , stands for a regular partial derivative. You are here including the basis vector ##e_\mu## in your notation. When you do that you are using a notation where anything multiplying it is just a scalar function. It holds that ##\nabla_a e_b = \Gamma_{ab}^c e_c## by definition. The covariant derivative is linear and satisfies the product rule (this is not chain rule)
$$
\nabla_a (fV) = V \nabla_a f + f \nabla_a V,
$$
where ##f## is a scalar field and ##V## is a vector. Note that ##\nabla_a f = \partial_a f## for any scalar field. In your case, therefore
$$
\nabla_a(\Gamma^c_{bd}e_c) = \Gamma^c_{bd} \nabla_a e_c + e_c \nabla_a \Gamma^c_{bd}
= \Gamma^c_{bd} \Gamma^f_{ac} e_f + e_c \Gamma^c_{bd,a}.
$$

Do not confuse this notation with the usual notation without writing out the vector basis, where we typically use the convention
$$
\nabla_a V^b \equiv (\nabla_a V)^b,
$$
i.e., the LHS is defined as the ##b##-component of ##\nabla_a V##. Actually writing out the basis in the RHS gives you
$$
(\nabla_a V)^b = [\nabla_a (V^c e_c)]^b = [V^c \nabla_a e_c]^b + [e_c \nabla_a V^c]^b
= V^c [\Gamma^d_{ac} e_d]^b + [V^c_{,a} e_c]^b
= V^c \Gamma^b_{ac} + V^b_{,a},
$$
since ##[e_c]^b = \delta^b_c##.
Okay cleared now, thanks much.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the , stands for a regular partial derivative. You are here including the basis vector ##e_\mu## in your notation. When you do that you are using a notation where anything multiplying it is just a scalar function. It holds that ##\nabla_a e_b = \Gamma_{ab}^c e_c## by definition. The covariant derivative is linear and satisfies the product rule (this is not chain rule)
$$
\nabla_a (fV) = V \nabla_a f + f \nabla_a V,
$$
where ##f## is a scalar field and ##V## is a vector. Note that ##\nabla_a f = \partial_a f## for any scalar field. In your case, therefore
$$
\nabla_a(\Gamma^c_{bd}e_c) = \Gamma^c_{bd} \nabla_a e_c + e_c \nabla_a \Gamma^c_{bd}
= \Gamma^c_{bd} \Gamma^f_{ac} e_f + e_c \Gamma^c_{bd,a}.
$$

Do not confuse this notation with the usual notation without writing out the vector basis, where we typically use the convention
$$
\nabla_a V^b \equiv (\nabla_a V)^b,
$$
i.e., the LHS is defined as the ##b##-component of ##\nabla_a V##. Actually writing out the basis in the RHS gives you
$$
(\nabla_a V)^b = [\nabla_a (V^c e_c)]^b = [V^c \nabla_a e_c]^b + [e_c \nabla_a V^c]^b
= V^c [\Gamma^d_{ac} e_d]^b + [V^c_{,a} e_c]^b
= V^c \Gamma^b_{ac} + V^b_{,a},
$$
since ##[e_c]^b = \delta^b_c##.
Btw oddly enough it is named "chain rule" in the Charles & Wheeler book..
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Two Covariant Derivatives (Chain Rule)?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Two Covariant Derivatives (Chain Rule)?

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top