Why do these two terms cancel in the Riemann-Christoffel tensor?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Legion81
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cancellation of two terms in the Riemann-Christoffel tensor derivation using covariant differentiation. Participants are exploring the mathematical expressions involved, particularly focusing on the symmetry of Christoffel symbols and the manipulation of partial derivatives acting on a vector.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the terms involving the Christoffel symbols and partial derivatives, questioning their equality and cancellation.
  • Another participant suggests rewriting the expression to show the equality, indicating a need for manipulation of indices.
  • A third participant requests clarification on the action of the expression and proposes rewriting partial derivatives in terms of covariant derivatives.
  • A later reply describes attempts to rewrite the terms involving the vector A and the Christoffel symbols but indicates that these attempts did not lead to a resolution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the cancellation of the terms, with no consensus reached on how to demonstrate their equality or the conditions under which they might cancel.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the manipulation of indices and the specific conditions under which the terms might be shown to be equal. The discussion also highlights a dependence on the properties of the Christoffel symbols and the nature of the vector A.

Legion81
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to work through getting the Riemann-Christoffel tensor using covariant differentiation and I don't see where two terms cancel. I have the correct result, plus these two terms:

d/dx^(sigma) *{alpha nu, tau}*A^(alpha)
and
d/dx^(nu) *{alpha sigma, tau}*A^(alpha)

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to do this with LaTeX. The A^(alpha) is just an arbitrary contravariant vector, and the {a n, t} and {a sigma, t} are Christoffel symbols.

Somehow these two are supposed to be equal (in order to cancel). I know the Christoffel symbols are symmetric in the lower indices, but that doesn't help me much. Can anyone shed some light on why the two are the same?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Or more simply put:

{alpha nu, tau}*d/dx^sigma - {alpha sigma, tau}*d/dx^nu = 0

How can I show this is true? Is there some way of writing this with the nu and sigma switched in one of the terms?

Thanks.
 
I'm afraid you have to be a little more specific. I don't see why an expression like

<br /> \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\nu} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\sigma}} - <br /> \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\sigma} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\nu}}<br />

would disappear. On what does it act? Maybe you can rewrite the partial derivatives in terms of covariant ones?

And for future questions: learn how to use latex. You can look at the code I've written down. It's a matter of hours to get the basics, and eventually you will need it anyway if you study physics or math ;)
 
Thanks for the reply (and the latex sample!). It is acting on a vector A:

<br /> \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\nu} \frac{\partial A^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\sigma}} - <br /> \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\sigma} \frac{\partial A^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\nu}}<br />

I've tried rewriting the partials as

<br /> A^{\alpha}_{\sigma} - \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\sigma} A^{\mu}<br />

and

<br /> A^{\alpha}_{\nu} - \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} A^{\mu}<br />

which would give me

<br /> \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\nu} A^{\alpha}_{\sigma} - \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\nu} \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\sigma} A^{\mu} - \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\sigma} A^{\alpha}_{\nu} + \Gamma^{\tau}_{\alpha\sigma} \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} A^{\mu}<br />

but it didn't get me anywhere. Any ideas?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K