- #1
LAHLH
- 409
- 1
Hi,
I'm working through Carroll App D, and trying to show the alternative form of the extrinsic curvature that he says should take a few lines.
Starting with [tex] K_{\mu\nu}=P^{\alpha}_{\mu}P^{\beta}_{\nu}\nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\beta)} [/tex] where P is the projection tensor, and n is the normal to the hypersurface.
Then I expand out using the definition of the projection operator:
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\left(\delta^{\alpha}_{\mu}-\sigma n^{\alpha}n_{\mu}\right)\left(\delta^{\beta}_{\nu}-\sigma n^{\beta}n_{\nu}\right) \nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\beta)} [/tex]
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\nu)}-\sigma n^{\beta}n_{\nu}\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\beta)} -\sigma n^{\alpha}n_{\mu}\nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\nu)}+n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\beta)}[/tex]
focussing on the final term for a moment:
[tex]n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\beta}+n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{\beta}n_{\alpha}[/tex]
[tex]=2n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\beta}[/tex]
[tex]=n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n^{\beta}n_{\beta}[/tex]
[tex]=n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\sigma[/tex]
[tex]=0[/tex]
(follows if n is parallel transported which I think it is). Getting rid of similar terms of the form [tex] n^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\beta} [/tex] by the same trick. Then I'm left with:
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\nu)}-\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\mu} n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} n_{\nu} -\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\mu} [/tex]
Now the only way I can think of proceeding is using the fact that n is hypersuface orthogonal [tex] n_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu}n_{\sigma]}=0 [/tex]. If you expand this and contact it with say [tex]n^{\mu} [/tex], multiply through by sigma, and use the above trick to eliminate a couple of terms, I get:
[tex] \nabla_{[\nu}n_{\mu]}-\sigma n_{\nu} n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} n_{\mu}+\sigma n_{\mu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\nu}=0[/tex]
Subbing this into the above:
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\nu)}+ \nabla_{[\nu}n_{\mu]}-\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\nu} n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} n_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\mu} [/tex]
which is almost the desired relation, maybe I've made a few algebraic errors. But does anyone know if my general method is correct? seems more than 'a few lines...'
I'm working through Carroll App D, and trying to show the alternative form of the extrinsic curvature that he says should take a few lines.
Starting with [tex] K_{\mu\nu}=P^{\alpha}_{\mu}P^{\beta}_{\nu}\nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\beta)} [/tex] where P is the projection tensor, and n is the normal to the hypersurface.
Then I expand out using the definition of the projection operator:
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\left(\delta^{\alpha}_{\mu}-\sigma n^{\alpha}n_{\mu}\right)\left(\delta^{\beta}_{\nu}-\sigma n^{\beta}n_{\nu}\right) \nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\beta)} [/tex]
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\nu)}-\sigma n^{\beta}n_{\nu}\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\beta)} -\sigma n^{\alpha}n_{\mu}\nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\nu)}+n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{(\alpha}n_{\beta)}[/tex]
focussing on the final term for a moment:
[tex]n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\beta}+n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{\beta}n_{\alpha}[/tex]
[tex]=2n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\beta}[/tex]
[tex]=n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n^{\beta}n_{\beta}[/tex]
[tex]=n_{\mu}n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\sigma[/tex]
[tex]=0[/tex]
(follows if n is parallel transported which I think it is). Getting rid of similar terms of the form [tex] n^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\beta} [/tex] by the same trick. Then I'm left with:
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\nu)}-\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\mu} n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} n_{\nu} -\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\mu} [/tex]
Now the only way I can think of proceeding is using the fact that n is hypersuface orthogonal [tex] n_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu}n_{\sigma]}=0 [/tex]. If you expand this and contact it with say [tex]n^{\mu} [/tex], multiply through by sigma, and use the above trick to eliminate a couple of terms, I get:
[tex] \nabla_{[\nu}n_{\mu]}-\sigma n_{\nu} n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} n_{\mu}+\sigma n_{\mu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\nu}=0[/tex]
Subbing this into the above:
[tex] K_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{(\mu}n_{\nu)}+ \nabla_{[\nu}n_{\mu]}-\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\nu} n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} n_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}\sigma n_{\nu}n^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\mu} [/tex]
which is almost the desired relation, maybe I've made a few algebraic errors. But does anyone know if my general method is correct? seems more than 'a few lines...'