Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

191 submissions , 151 unreviewed
4,796 questions , 1,987 unanswered
5,288 answers , 22,472 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
773 active unimported users
More ...

  What can be the mathematical justification for double derivatives of the position vector and any other general vector to obey different rules?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
2799 views

Kindly refer to the earlier question: Why in the curved space-time, the double derivatives of the position vector are symmetric but any other vector are not symmetric?

This problem can be mathematically analysed as follows:

The symmetry conditions seem to depend upon, how we define the vectors and their incremental vectors. We compare incremental vectors in a flat space and curved space:

(a) In a flat space, an incremental vector of a general vector (eq. (1) in image) can be obtained by taking a covariant derivative of the vector. Similarly, an incremental distance (position) vector (eq. (3)) can also be written by taking covariant derivative of the position vector.

Therefore, the expressions of both the general incremental vector and the incremental distance vector satisfy same symmetry conditions in a flat space.

(b) In a curved space, an incremental vector of a general vector (eq. (4) in image) can be obtained by taking a covariant derivative of the vector.

But, there is no expression of position vector which can be differentiated to write the desired incremental distance vector. The incremental distance vector has to be defined based on the Schwarzschild metric (eq. (5) in image).

In a curved space, the expressions for the incremental distance vector (eq. (5)) and any other general incremental vector (eq. (4)) are not similar.

Hence, the symmetry conditions for their corresponding vectors, general vector A and position vector s need not be same. Note, writing a position vector expression in curved space is not necessary for suggesting that the double derivatives of the position vector are symmetric. This symmetry arises because we can take partial derivative of the incremental distance (position) vector. This symmetry leads to the symmetry of Christoffel symbols. 

But assumption of this symmetry of position vector cannot guarantee symmetry of double derivatives of a general vector. Therefore, some curvature tensor components are non-zero.

Reference Article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350546500_A_classical_scrutiny_of_the_Schwarzschild_solution

asked Jul 14 in Theoretical Physics by NSRG [ revision history ]
edited Jul 14

1 Answer

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

The standard GR interpretation doesn't allow a position vector. Therefore we have to define the incremental distance vector from the Schwarzschild metric. But, this leads to the contradictory unit vector differentiation values. Therefore we cannot even write the unit vectors which can give these contradictory results after differentiation. Hence, it is not possible to suggest even a coordinate system for the curved space.  

Kindly refer to the question: 

Is it incorrect to assume the Christoffel symbol symmetry (with respect to the lower indices) for a curved space-time?

answered Jul 16 by NSRG [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...