- #1
JorisL
- 492
- 189
Hello,
I've worked through most of Carroll's appendix on the non-coordinate basis.
I see and agree how the spin connection and tetrad one-forms are useful while calculating.
However as an example he sets out to apply the formalism to a spatially flat, expanding universe.
[tex]ds^2 = -dt^2 +a^2(t)\delta_{ij}dx^idx^j = -e^0\otimes e^0 + \sum_i e^i\otimes e^i [/tex]
The choice of the vielbein one-forms is clear in this case as is the calculation.
He states however that by using raising and lowering indices on the spin connection ##\omega_{ab}## we can show the following identities by using the antisymmetry. (I copied the expressions verbatim, i and j are different from 0)
[tex]\omega^0_{\,\, j} = \omega^j_{\,\, 0}[/tex]
Here I wrote ##\omega^0_{\,\, j} = \eta^{0a}\omega_{a j} = - \eta^{0a}\omega_{j a} = \omega_{j}^{\, \, 0}##
This is similar but not the same.
[tex]\omega^i_{\,\, j} = -\omega^j_{\,\, i}[/tex]
For the other relation I can do exactly the same and get a similar result.
With the same difference in index position.
So I don't get the same relation. Is he abusing notation here?
Or am I overlooking something? It bothers me without measure whenever I encounter such a problem.
Thanks,
Joris
I've worked through most of Carroll's appendix on the non-coordinate basis.
I see and agree how the spin connection and tetrad one-forms are useful while calculating.
However as an example he sets out to apply the formalism to a spatially flat, expanding universe.
[tex]ds^2 = -dt^2 +a^2(t)\delta_{ij}dx^idx^j = -e^0\otimes e^0 + \sum_i e^i\otimes e^i [/tex]
The choice of the vielbein one-forms is clear in this case as is the calculation.
He states however that by using raising and lowering indices on the spin connection ##\omega_{ab}## we can show the following identities by using the antisymmetry. (I copied the expressions verbatim, i and j are different from 0)
[tex]\omega^0_{\,\, j} = \omega^j_{\,\, 0}[/tex]
Here I wrote ##\omega^0_{\,\, j} = \eta^{0a}\omega_{a j} = - \eta^{0a}\omega_{j a} = \omega_{j}^{\, \, 0}##
This is similar but not the same.
[tex]\omega^i_{\,\, j} = -\omega^j_{\,\, i}[/tex]
For the other relation I can do exactly the same and get a similar result.
With the same difference in index position.
So I don't get the same relation. Is he abusing notation here?
Or am I overlooking something? It bothers me without measure whenever I encounter such a problem.
Thanks,
Joris