Weak Field Approximation - Quick Sign Question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the weak field approximation in general relativity, specifically focusing on the sign conventions in equations related to the metric tensor and the Christoffel symbols. Participants are examining the consistency of signs in equations (29) and (45) from a referenced source, comparing them to the Newton-Poisson equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether equation (45) should have a minus sign based on their interpretation of equation (29) and the metric signature.
  • Another participant asserts that lowering the derivative index in equation (29) changes the sign, suggesting that the original equation is correct as written.
  • A participant clarifies that the derivatives in question are partial derivatives, not covariant or contravariant, and raises a question about the indexing in equations (29) and (45).
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the indexing of the Christoffel symbols, noting that equation (29) has one upper index because ##h_{00}## is a component, while equation (45) results in a scalar due to the summation over the index.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the derivatives in equation (45), suggesting that taking a lower derivative of equation (29) would yield a different form than presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the sign in equation (45) and the implications of the indexing in the equations. There is no consensus on whether a sign error exists, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential ambiguities related to the use of partial versus covariant derivatives and the implications of the metric signature on the equations discussed.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap7/node3.html

Shouldn't eq 45 have a minus sign, looking at eq 29.
Although I'm confused because the positive sign makes sense when comparing with the Newton-Poisson equation.
I can't see a sign error in eq 29.

(I believe the metric signature here is (-,+,+,+))

Anyone?
thanks..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
When you lower the derivative index of ##{h_{00}}^{,i}## in (29) it changes the sign. I think what is written on that page is correct.
 
Mentz114 said:
When you lower the derivative index of ##{h_{00}}^{,i}## in (29) it changes the sign. I think what is written on that page is correct.

Ahh thanks,
but these are not covariant/contravariant derivatives they are just partials , is this correct?

Also if equation (29) has an upper index then I thought (45) would have one upper and lower?
 
binbagsss said:
Ahh thanks,
but these are not covariant/contravariant derivatives they are just partials , is this correct?

Also if equation (29) has an upper index then I thought (45) would have one upper and lower?
Yes, the comma usually means partials, the semi-colon is used for covariant derivatives.

We have (29)

##{\Gamma^i}_{00} \approx -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon {h_{00}}^{,i}##

which has one upper index only because ##h_{00}## is a number ( a component).

In (45) ##{\Gamma^i}_{00,i}## has no indexes because ##i## is summed over. This is a scalar which it must be to give us Poisson's equation.
 
Last edited:
Mentz114 said:
Yes, the comma usually means partials, the semi-colon is used for covariant derivatives.

We have (29)

##{\Gamma^i}_{00} \approx -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon {h_{00}}^{,i}##

which has one upper index only because ##h_{00}## is a number ( a component).

In (45) ##{\Gamma^i}_{00,i}## has no indexes because ##i## is summed over. This is a scalar which it must be to give us Poisson's equation.

I mean the ##h_{00,ii}## in [45], Taking a lower derivative of (29)-##{\Gamma^i}_{00,i}## I thought would give ##h_{00,i}^{,i}##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K