I Covariant divergence of vector; physical meaning with contracted Tuv

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tertius
  • Start date Start date
Tertius
Messages
57
Reaction score
10
TL;DR Summary
The covariant divergence of a vector has a simplified form. I am discussing this in relation to a contraction of the SEM tensor and its meaning.
I'm studying Carroll's section on covariant derivatives, which shows that the covariant divergence of a vector ##V^\mu## is given by $$\nabla_\mu V^\mu = \partial_\mu V^\mu + \Gamma^\mu_{\mu\lambda}V^\lambda$$. Because ##\Gamma^\mu_{\mu\lambda}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial_\lambda \sqrt{g}## we can write $$\nabla_\mu V^\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \partial_\mu(\sqrt{g}V^\mu)$$. If we say ##V^\mu = U_\nu T^{\mu\nu}##, then the covariant divergence looks like $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \partial_\mu(\sqrt{g} U_\nu T^{\mu\nu})$$. The rank-1 tensor ##U_\nu T^{\mu\nu}## should represent the energy and momentum densities in each of the 4 coordinate directions. The covariant divergence of this rank-1 tensor should then be the sum of the changes of the energy and momentum densities along each coordinate. The simplified form $$\nabla_\mu V^\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \partial_\mu(\sqrt{g}V^\mu)$$ looks to be volume independent in that the partial derivative is taken of the volume element multiplied by the vector, and then divided again by ##\sqrt{g}## after the change is computed. From this perspective, it seems like ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \partial_\mu(\sqrt{g}V^\mu)## should represent changes to the components of ##V^\mu## independent of volumetric changes. Is this a correct interpretation?
For a flat FRW universe of only dust and a timelike observer, it would look like $$\frac{1}{a^3}\partial_t(-\rho a^3)$$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I realized the problem was quite simple. The covariant derivative is "correcting" for changes to the metric. The changes in the FRW metric look volumetric because ##\sqrt{g}=a^3##.
 
It's, of course, ##\sqrt{-g}## everywhere, since ##g=\mathrm{det} g<0##. Otherwise it's correct.
 
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...
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...
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...
Back
Top