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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Legion81
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor
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?
 
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