Weyl Tensor Notation in Dimension 4

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jfy4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expression Weyl
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the notation and formulation of the Weyl Tensor in four dimensions, specifically examining the expression for the tensor and its properties. Participants are exploring the mathematical representation and implications of the tensor in the context of differential geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents their formulation of the Weyl Tensor in dimension 4 and seeks validation of their expression.
  • Another participant expresses agreement with the presented formulation.
  • A different participant suggests testing the contraction of the Weyl Tensor with a specific index to check for a property (specifically, whether it equals zero).
  • Further confirmation is provided by another participant, reiterating the correctness of the initial formulation and the contraction result.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the correctness of the Weyl Tensor formulation and the result of the contraction, though no formal consensus on broader implications or interpretations is established.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not address potential limitations or assumptions underlying the expressions provided, nor does it explore the implications of the results in detail.

jfy4
Messages
645
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I'm getting used to the anti-symmetric bracket notation used with indices and I can't seem to find the Weyl Tensor written fully out. So I want to make sure I get it. Here is my attempt in dimension 4.

[tex]W_{abcd}=R_{abcd}-\frac{1}{2}\left[g_{ac}R_{db}-g_{ad}R_{cb}-g_{bc}R_{da}+g_{bd}R_{ca}\right]+\frac{1}{6}R\left(g_{ac}g_{db}-g_{ad}g_{cb}\right)[/tex]

It is written on wiki as

[tex]W_{abcd}=R_{abcd}-\frac{2}{n-2}\left(g_{a[c}R_{d]b}-g_{b[c}R_{d]a}\right)+\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)}R\, g_{a[c}g_{d]b}[/tex]

Did I do it correct for n=4?

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good to me.
 
Looks right. Try contracting, gacWabcd, and see if you get 0.
 
cristo said:
Looks good to me.

Bill_K said:
Looks right. Try contracting, gacWabcd, and see if you get 0.

Thanks, I got 0 when I contracted.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K