Why Do These Riemann Tensor Terms Cancel Each Other Out?

ProfDawgstein
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
I was working on the derivation of the riemann tensor and got this

(1) ##\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\mu} \partial_\beta A_\lambda##

and this

(2) ##\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \beta\mu} \partial_\alpha A_\lambda##

How do I see that they cancel (1 - 2)?

##\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\mu} \partial_\beta A_\lambda - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \beta\mu} \partial_\alpha A_\lambda = 0##

The only difference is ##\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta##

First step was ##\left[ D_\alpha, D_\beta \right] A_\mu = D_\alpha (D_\beta A_\mu) - D_\beta (D_\alpha A_\mu)##

then

##D_\beta A_\mu = \partial_\beta A_\mu - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\beta} A_\lambda = A_{\mu ;\beta} => V_{\mu\beta}##

then another covariant derivative

##D_\alpha V_{\mu\beta} = \partial_\alpha V_{\mu\beta} - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\mu} V_{\lambda\beta} - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\beta} V_{\mu\lambda}##

then plug in

## D_\alpha (D_\beta A_\mu) = \partial_\alpha (\partial_\beta A_\mu - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} A_\sigma)
- \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha \mu} (\partial_\beta A_\lambda - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \lambda \beta} A_{\sigma})
- \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha \beta} (\partial_\lambda A_\mu - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\lambda} A_\sigma)##

And later

##-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha \mu} (\partial_\beta A_\lambda - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \lambda \beta} A_{\sigma})##

which is

##-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha \mu} \partial_\beta A_\lambda + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha \mu} \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \lambda \beta} A_{\sigma}##

the 2nd term cancels later, but the 1st one does not (see above)

Fleisch (Students Guide to Vectors and Tensors) also does this derivation, but he never had two terms like this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
updated first post a few hours ago.

Why can't I edit it now?

----------------------------------------

the 2nd calculation (##D_\beta D_\alpha##) should be the same, except that ##\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta##

could it be that I forgot the product rule for the 2nd term in ##( ... )##?

I am so stupid :(

##\partial_\alpha (\partial_\beta A_\mu - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} A_\sigma)##

##= \partial_\alpha \partial_\beta A_\mu - \partial_\alpha (\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} A_\sigma)##

using the product rule on the 2nd term

##= \partial_\alpha \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} \partial_\alpha A_\sigma##

doing ##\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta## for the 2nd commutator term

##= \partial_\beta \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\alpha} A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\alpha} \partial_\beta A_\sigma##

which just produces the terms I need to cancel the ones from post #1 :)

-------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for not posting the answer.

Sometimes it is hard to see the obvious...

-------------------------------------------------------

The full derivation now is

##A_{\mu ;\beta \alpha} = \partial_\alpha \partial_\beta A_\mu - \partial_\alpha \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} \partial_\alpha A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\mu} \partial_\beta A_\lambda + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\alpha\mu} \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \lambda\beta} A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\beta} \partial_\lambda A_\mu + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\beta} \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\lambda} A_\sigma##

and

##A_{\mu ;\alpha \beta} = \partial_\beta \partial_\alpha A_\mu - \partial_\beta \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\alpha} A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\alpha} \partial_\beta A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \beta\mu} \partial_\alpha A_\lambda + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\beta\mu} \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \lambda\alpha} A_\sigma - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \beta\alpha} \partial_\lambda A_\mu + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \beta\alpha} \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\lambda} A_\sigma##

subtracting both

##A_{\mu ;\beta \alpha} - A_{\mu ;\alpha \beta}##

using symmetry of the christoffel symbols and ##\partial_\alpha \partial_\beta = \partial_\beta \partial_\alpha## and moving the minus sign out of ##( ... )## we get

##\left[ D_\alpha, D_\beta \right] A_\mu = A_{\mu ;\beta \alpha} - A_{\mu ;\alpha \beta} = - R^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\alpha\beta} A_\sigma##

where

##R^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\alpha\beta} = \partial_\alpha \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\beta} - \partial_\beta \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \mu\alpha} + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \beta\mu} \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \lambda\alpha} - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\ \alpha\mu} \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\ \lambda\beta}##
 
Last edited:
You may also see the derivation in Dirac's book : General theory of Relativity under equation 11.1 if I'm not wrong
 
Everything is solved now.

After some messy messing around and remembering the product rule ( LOL , Thanks Newton ;) ) I got it.

Can be closed.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top