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
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top