Proving ##C## is constant in 4-dim ##R_{\mu\nu}=Cg_{\mu\nu}##

crime9894
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Suppose for a certain 4-dimensional manifold, the Ricci tensor is given by ##R_{\mu}{\nu}=Cg_{\mu}{\nu}## .
Show C is constant (make necessary assumption)
Relevant Equations
Einstein's equation: ##R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} Rg_{\mu\nu}=8\pi GT_{\mu\nu}##
This question wasn't particularly hard, so I assume metric compatibility and input Ricci tensor to the left side of Einstein's equation.
$$R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} Rg_{\mu\nu}=Cg_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} (4C)g_{\mu\nu}=-Cg_{\mu\nu}$$
Then apply covariant derivative on both side:
$$\nabla^{\mu}(-Cg_{\mu\nu})=8\pi G\nabla^{\mu}T$$
From metric compatibility and conservation of energy-momentum tensor
$$\nabla_{\nu}C=0$$
Covariant derivative reduce to partial derivative when acted on scalar and thus conclude C is constant.

But now I thought of a different approach:
Maximally symmetric space has its Riemann tensor of the form:
$$R_{abcd}\propto g_{ac}g_{bd}-g_{ad}g_{bc}$$
Contracting both side once reduce it to Ricci tensor
$$R_{ab}\propto g_{ab}$$

So my question is: does it works the way around? Does ##R_{\mu\nu}## having the form ##Cg_{\mu\nu}## concludes the manifold is maximally symmetric?
Maximally symmetric space has constant Ricci scalar ##R## and contracting the Ricci tensor immediately yield desire conclusion.
But I'm not sure if such argument is valid at the first place
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is C? Also, the notation doesn't seem to be working in LaTeX.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top