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:
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top