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?
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top