Why are there two delta x^u/v in equation (1.16) on page 9 of Carroll's GR book?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter OS Richert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused Gr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the equation (1.16) from Sean Carroll's General Relativity textbook, specifically addressing the presence of two delta x terms in the equation. Participants explore the implications of this notation and its relation to the spacetime interval, as well as the mathematical structure of the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the equation (1.16) and its notation, particularly regarding the two delta x terms.
  • Another participant suggests that the distance is a quadratic form and references the Einstein summation convention as a potential source of clarification.
  • A later reply provides a detailed breakdown of the equation, explaining that it involves summing over indices and clarifying that the terms are squared due to the nature of the metric.
  • Some participants discuss the challenges of learning from Carroll's text and recommend alternative resources for understanding General Relativity.
  • One participant speculates that the two delta x terms might be equal, leading to the square terms in the equation.
  • Another participant confirms that the equation sums over the indices, resulting in specific terms being zero for off-diagonal entries in the metric.
  • There is a mention of the potential for confusion in understanding the notation and the structure of the equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the equation, with some finding clarity in the explanations provided while others continue to seek further clarification. No consensus is reached on the best approach to learning from Carroll's text.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in their understanding of the notation and the mathematical steps involved in the equation, indicating that further exploration of the topic may be necessary.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals studying General Relativity, particularly those grappling with the mathematical formalism and notation used in Carroll's textbook.

OS Richert
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I am attempting to learn GR (for fun) using Sean Carroll's text. I have made it ALL the way to . . . . page 9

I don't understand the equation on the bottom of page 9; (1.16) (namely, why there are TWO delta x ^u and delta x^y; but to type out my question I will need to know how you guys format in Physics notation. Can someone give me a link to that thread and then I will return here and type my question more appriopatly.

(If someone thinks they can understand my question anyway and wants to answer it; it is this. W have a 4x4 matrix (the n with the uv lower idicie) mulitplied by a 4x1 matrix delta x^u which itself is a single scalar which is exactly the spacetime interval (equation 1.10 on page 7). BUT, there are two delta x ^ u/v. What's up with that?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yes, 1.9 of those online lecture notes. It loooks like your wikipedia link will solve my problem. I will look at it tomorrow, as it is 2am here and I have already had a little too much to drink. :bugeye: Thanks!
Pete
 
[itex]ds^2 = (dy^1)^2 + (dy^2)^2 +...+(dy^N)^2[/itex]

[itex]ds^2 = \delta_{kj} dy^k dy^j[/itex]
 
Carroll's text isn't very good for fun learning. Do you have a bit of disposable income for ordering texts, or is there a college near you?
 
Thrice, what book do you recommend for learning GR?
 
actionintegral said:
Thrice, what book do you recommend for learning GR?
Your mileage will vary. I personally found https://www.amazon.com/dp/012200681X/?tag=pfamazon01-20 one to be very helpful, but I'd say you're best off going to some college library and scanning through their relativity section.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, Thrice, for providing the instructions for Latex. I have done my best to ask again as wikipedia and your explanation fell short on my feable brain.

Equation 1.10 is the spacetime interval.
Code:
[tex]( \Delta s )^2 = -( c \Delta t )^2 + ( \Delta x )^2 + ( \Delta y )^2 + ( \Delta z )^2[/tex]

Carroll then introduces the following notation.

Code:
[tex]x^\mu : x^0 = ct, x^1 = x, x^2 = y, x^3 = z[/tex]

and the 4x4 metrax metric
Code:
[tex]\eta_\mu_\nu = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}\right)[/tex]

Finnally, Carroll give us (1.16) and says the content is the same as (1.10) above.
Code:
[tex]( \Delta s )^2 = \eta_\mu_\nu \Delta x^\mu \Delta x^v[/tex]

my only guess here, is that [tex]x^\mu[/tex] and [tex]x^\nu[/tex] are equal, and that is where we are getting the square terms from. And then we sum every role of the matrix with these two (somewhat like matrix multipliation though I don't know what kind of vector [tex]\Delta x^\mu \Delta x^\nu[/tex] is supposed to be, so we end up with

-1 (ct)(ct) + 0(x)(x) + 0(y)(y)... + 1(y)(y) + 0(z)(z)...

Is that correct?

Carroll's text isn't very good for fun learning. Do you have a bit of disposable income for ordering texts, or is there a college near you?

Now you tell me! I dropped fifty dollars on this book used, bar far the most I have ever spent on a textbook I was buying just for fun. I took my reccomendation from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/reading.html#str" site. I don't think I can spend another 60 dollars unless I sell this book off. I have also purchased, but not yet received, "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler, so maybe they will introduce this notation with a more verbose explanation (indeed, I haven't gotten out of the sr section yet )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
OS Richert said:
[tex]( \Delta s )^2 = \eta_\mu_\nu \Delta x^\mu \Delta x^v[/tex]

my only guess here, is that [tex]x^\mu[/tex] and [tex]x^\nu[/tex] are equal, and that is where we are getting the square terms from. And then we sum every role of the matrix with these two (somewhat like matrix multipliation though I don't know what kind of vector [tex]\Delta x^\mu \Delta x^\nu[/tex] is supposed to be, so we end up with

-1 (ct)(ct) + 0(x)(x) + 0(y)(y)... + 1(y)(y) + 0(z)(z)...

Is that correct?
[tex]( \Delta s )^2 = \eta_\mu_\nu \Delta x^\mu \Delta x^v[/tex] means you sum over [tex]\mu[/tex] and [tex]\nu[/tex]. That means it is equal
to

[tex]\eta_{00} {\Delta x^0}{\Delta x^0} + \eta_{01} \Delta x^0 \Delta x^1<br /> +\eta_{02} \Delta x^0 \Delta x^2 + \eta_{03} \Delta x^0 \Delta x^3 +<br /> \eta_{10} \Delta x^1 \Delta x^0 + ... + \eta_{33} \Delta x^3 \Delta x^3[/tex]

There are 16 terms in the sum. It is just that [tex]\eta_{\mu \nu}[/tex] is zero for [tex]\mu \neq \nu[/tex]. By [tex]\eta_{\mu \nu}[/tex] here I am referring to the [tex]\mu\nu[/tex] entry of the matrix and not the matrix itself. The meaning should be clear from the context when you get the hang of it. My apology. So you only have the square terms instead of cross term. This need not hold in an arbitrary metric.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
That makes perfect sense yenchin! Thank you very much!
 
  • #12
OS Richert said:
Thrice said:
Carroll's text isn't very good for fun learning. Do you have a bit of disposable income for ordering texts, or is there a college near you?

Now you tell me! I dropped fifty dollars on this book used, bar far the most I have ever spent on a textbook I was buying just for fun. I took my reccomendation from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/reading.html#str" site. I don't think I can spend another 60 dollars unless I sell this book off. I have also purchased, but not yet received, "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler, so maybe they will introduce this notation with a more verbose explanation (indeed, I haven't gotten out of the sr section yet )

Generally, one would start with something at the level of "Spacetime Physics" then proceed on to something at the level of Carroll's text (which, by the way, has a draft version at http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/... a related video is available at General Relativity Primer ).

Some other new GR textbook suggestions are in my "[URL contribution to the blog
[/URL]
physicsforums.com/blog/2006/07/30/aapt-syracuse-2006/ said:
Second, from Jul 20-21, there was the http://www.aapt-doorway.org/TGRU/" . I’m sure that there are some future textbook authors among the rest of the participants. A lot of good ideas were discussed: “Physics first?”, teach GPS?, teach Gravitational Waves? teach Black Holes? teach Cosmology? teach tensors? [how? … and when?], using visualizations and simulations, confronting misconceptions, etc… Stay tuned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
OS Richert said:
Now you tell me! I dropped fifty dollars on this book used, bar far the most I have ever spent on a textbook I was buying just for fun.
Ouch. I thought you were working with his draft version.
 
  • #14
OS Richert said:
Now you tell me! I dropped fifty dollars on this book used, bar far the most I have ever spent on a textbook I was buying just for fun. I took my reccomendation from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/reading.html#str" site. I don't think I can spend another 60 dollars unless I sell this book off. I have also purchased, but not yet received, "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler, so maybe they will introduce this notation with a more verbose explanation (indeed, I haven't gotten out of the sr section yet )

Gee, I think the Carroll book is fun. Granted, a very geeky kind of fun. You got a very good deal on the book. I paid $70 for it used, and the binding was broken. Grrrr, got to be careful with those Amazon Marketplace sellers.

Don't forget the online lectures Carroll did (should be linked off his website).

Starting with Taylor and Wheeler to build up some geometrical intuition is a very good idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K