Weird version of covariant derivative on wikipedia

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the covariant derivative as it relates to the four-force in general relativity, particularly in the context of its representation on Wikipedia. Participants explore the differences between covariant derivatives and absolute derivatives, as well as the implications of using different coordinate systems in both special and general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the gamma symbols in the four-force equation are meant to select the 0th component in a specific frame.
  • Another participant asserts that the expression given is not truly a covariant derivative but rather an absolute derivative along the particle's world line.
  • A participant explains the transition from special to general relativity, emphasizing the need to replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives when differentiating with respect to proper time.
  • One participant highlights that proper time serves as the parameter for the world line to which the four-velocity is tangent.
  • A participant discusses the distinction between inertial and noninertial coordinate systems, arguing that covariant derivatives are necessary when basis vectors vary, regardless of spacetime curvature.
  • Another participant provides an example from Newtonian physics to illustrate how constant velocity appears differently in polar coordinates without using covariant derivatives.
  • A later reply agrees with the point about the distinction between coordinate systems and the necessity of covariant derivatives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the derivative used in the context of the four-force, with some asserting it is an absolute derivative while others maintain it is a covariant derivative. The discussion reflects multiple competing perspectives without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of derivatives in different coordinate systems and the implications of spacetime curvature, which remain unresolved.

GarageDweller
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-force

At the bottom of that page, the author provides the generalization of four force in general relativity, where the partial derivative is replaced with the covariant derivative.

However if you notice on the second term in the third equality, there is a four vector summed on mu with the gamma symbols, is that there to select the 0th component of the gamma symbol? Since in a MCRF frame, the spatial components of U are all 0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's because it's not really the covariant derivative. It's the absolute derivative, which is the covariant derivative taken along the particle's world line. That is,

Fλ = DPλ/Dτ = PλUμ
 
In special relativity, the chain rule gives

[tex]\frac{d}{d\tau} = \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\alpha} = U^\alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\alpha}.[/tex]

In general relativity, the partial derivative have to be replace by covariant derivatives, so

[tex]U^\alpha \nabla_{\partial_\alpha},[/tex]

and

[tex]U^\alpha \nabla_{\partial_\alpha} = \nabla_{U^\alpha \partial_\alpha} = \nabla_{U}[/tex]

Differentiating with respect to proper time is replaced by a covariant directional derivative in the direction of the 4-velocity.

[edit]didn't see Bill_K's post[/edit]
 
Um because proper time is the parameter of the world line that the four velocity is tangent to?
 
George Jones said:
In special relativity, the chain rule gives

[tex]\frac{d}{d\tau} = \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\alpha} = U^\alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\alpha}.[/tex]

In general relativity, the partial derivative have to be replace by covariant derivatives, so

[tex]U^\alpha \nabla_{\partial_\alpha},[/tex]

Just a comment: the distinction isn't Special Relativity vs General Relativity, it's inertial, cartesian coordinates vs. noninertial, curvilinear coordinates.

The covariant derivative must be used whenever the basis vectors vary from place to place. That can be due to spacetime curvature, but it can also be due to using curvilinear coordinates.

For example, let's do ordinary Newtonian physics in 2D space. We have a particle whose position as a function of time is given by [itex]x=A[/itex], [itex]y=vt[/itex] where A and v are constants. So this is just constant-velocity motion. The velocity vector [itex]U[/itex] is given by [itex]U^x = 0[/itex], [itex]U^y = v[/itex].

Now, in terms of polar coordinates [itex]r[/itex] and [itex]\theta[/itex], the same motion looks like:

[itex]U^r = \dfrac{dr}{dt} = \dfrac{v^2 t}{r}[/itex]
[itex]U^\theta = \dfrac{d \theta}{dt} = \dfrac{A\ v}{r^2}[/itex]

That doesn't look like "constant velocity" at all:
[itex]\dfrac{dU^r}{dt} = \dfrac{v^2 (r^2 - (v t)^2)}{r^3} = \dfrac{v^2 A^2}{r^3}[/itex]
[itex]\dfrac{dU^\theta}{dt} = \dfrac{- A v^3 t}{r^4}[/itex]

But it is constant, if you use covariant derivatives, with
[itex]\Gamma^r_{r r} = 0[/itex]
[itex]\Gamma^r_{r \theta} = 0[/itex]
[itex]\Gamma^r_{\theta r} = 0[/itex]
[itex]\Gamma^r_{\theta \theta} = -r[/itex]
[itex]\Gamma^\theta_{r r} = 0[/itex]
[itex]\Gamma^\theta_{r \theta} = \dfrac{1}{r}[/itex]
[itex]\Gamma^\theta_{\theta r} = \dfrac{1}{r}[/itex]
[itex]\Gamma^\theta_{\theta \theta} = 0[/itex]
 
stevendaryl said:
Just a comment: the distinction isn't Special Relativity vs General Relativity, it's inertial, cartesian coordinates vs. noninertial, curvilinear coordinates.

The covariant derivative must be used whenever the basis vectors vary from place to place. That can be due to spacetime curvature, but it can also be due to using curvilinear coordinates.

Yes, good point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K