I Using 4-derivative

deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
Hi! I am trying to understand the object ##\partial^\mu##, and wanted to check if the result I am getting below is true.

The definition of ##\partial_\mu## is:

$$\partial_\mu = ( \frac \partial {\partial x^0} , \frac \partial {\partial x^1}, \frac \partial {\partial x^2},\frac \partial {\partial x^3})$$

We define ##\partial^\mu## as:

$$\partial^\mu = \eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu = (\frac \partial {\partial x^0} , -\frac\partial {\partial x^1} , -\frac \partial {\partial x^2}, -\frac \partial {\partial x^3})$$

In this case, if we were to apply ##\partial^\mu## to ##x_\nu##, we would get:

$$\partial^\mu x_\nu = (\eta^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho)x_\nu=\eta^{\mu\rho} \partial_\rho (\eta_{\nu\sigma} x^\sigma)$$

Since ##\eta##'s are just number, I rearrange the equation to be:

$$=\eta^{\mu\rho} \eta_{\nu\sigma} \partial_\rho x^\sigma$$

Here, my knowledge of indices and contraction ends and I try to think of the objects like matrices, in which case I write:

$$= \begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^0} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^0} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^0} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^0} \\ \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^1} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^1} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^1} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^1}\\ \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^2} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^2} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^2} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^2} \\ \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^3} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^3} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^3} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^3}\end{bmatrix} $$

Here, one can observe the last matrix reduces to the identity matrix, and the multiplication of two ##\eta##'s also reduces to the identity matrix, thus I get:

$$=\mathbb I$$

Are these steps correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems OK.
\partial^\mu x_\nu = \delta_\nu^\mu
 
It looks ok. I would only comment that both ##\partial^\mu## and ##x_\mu## are somewhat artificial objects compared to the more natural ##\partial_\mu## and ##x^\mu##.

I much prefer actually writing out the metric.
 
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8, deuteron and dextercioby
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top