Why does the second term disappear in the tangent vector equation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Living_Dog
  • Start date Start date
Living_Dog
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
It is the last part that I am having trouble understanding. It says that if u and w are tangent vectors then,


\nabla_{\bold{u}}\bold{w} - \nabla_{\bold{w}}\bold{u} = [\bold{u},\bold{w}].​

Now,


[\bold{u},\bold{w}] = \partial_{\bold{u}}\partial_{\bold{w}} - \partial_{\bold{w}}\partial_{\bold{u}} = (u^\beta\,v^{\alpha}_{,\beta} - v^\beta\,u^{\alpha}_{,\beta})\bold{e}_\alpha.

But,


\nabla_{\bold{u}}\bold{w} - \nabla_{\bold{w}}\bold{u} = (u^\beta\,w^{\alpha}_{,\beta} - w^\beta\,u^{\alpha}_{,\beta})\bold{e}_\alpha + (u^\beta\,w^{\alpha} - w^\beta\,u^{\alpha})\bold{e}_{\alpha}_{,\beta}.

So how do I reason that the second term disappears? Is the derivative of the vector basis zero b/c this is in a local Lorentz frame? In other words, there are no correction terms??

Thanks in advance for any help you may give me.

-LD
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Work in coordinate basis e_\alpha=\partial_\alpha. Use the fact that the Levi-Civita connection is symmetric and
\nabla_\alpha e_\beta = ...
 
arkajad said:
Work in coordinate basis e_\alpha=\partial_\alpha. Use the fact that the Levi-Civita connection is symmetric and
\nabla_\alpha e_\beta = ...
[1] By "Levi-Civita connection" do you mean:
a) the "connection coefficients" aka
b) the affine connection aka
c) the Christoffel symbols??[2] In a coordinate basis, the commutator of the partials is zero. The second term is not a commutator of the partials - but of the components of the respective vectors. So it can't be canceled out.[3] Finally, \nabla_{\alpha}\,\bold{e}_{\beta} is the connection coefficient, \Gamma^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}\bold{e}_{\mu}. So then the other term would be: \nabla_{\beta}\,\bold{e}_{\alpha} = \Gamma^{\mu}_{\beta\alpha}\bold{e}_{\mu} ... which when subtracted - and since the Christoffel symbols are symmetric in their lower indices - would then make the second term cancel out!

So I was too quick to match dummy indices with these two terms! Yes?? (If so thanks dude!)-LD
 
"would then make the second term cancel out"
Just remeber: if A^{\alpha\beta} is antisymmetric and B_{\alpha\beta} is symmetric, then A^{\alpha\beta}B_{\alpha\beta}=0.
 
arkajad said:
"would then make the second term cancel out"
Just remeber: if A^{\alpha\beta} is antisymmetric and B_{\alpha\beta} is symmetric, then A^{\alpha\beta}B_{\alpha\beta}=0.

Yes! the (uw-wu) is anti-symmetric in a,b and the e_a,b is symmetric in a,b. That's a good one to remember.

Thanks for all your kind help and patience with me. May God richly bless you, in Jesus' name, amen.


-joe
 
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...
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...
Back
Top