Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I would be very grateful to whoever can debug the following calculations...

We have the metric for static spacetime: $$ds^2 = -\exp(2U(\vec x))dt^2+h_{ij}(\vec x) d x^i d x^j$$ I want to find the associated Christoffel symbols.

I know of 2 ways:

The first is to use the formula $$\Gamma^a_{bc}={1\over 2}g^{ad}(g_{dc,b}+g_{db,c}-g_{bc,d})$$ Using this formula, I get $$\Gamma^0_{0i}={\partial U\over \partial x^i}$$ for $i=1,2,3$.

However, by using a second way -- by reading off the Euler-Lagrange equation ,I got an extra factor of $2$ and I can't spot where I have made a mistake. Here is what I did:

The Lagrangian $$L=\exp(2U(\vec x))\dot t^2-h_{ij}(\vec x) \dot x^i \dot x^j$$ So by the Euler-Lagrange equation for the $t$ component, $${d\over d\tau}(\exp(2U(\vec x))\dot t)=0$$ which leads to $$\ddot t +2{\partial U\over \partial x^i} \dot x^i \dot t=0$$ Therefore giving $$\Gamma^0_{0i}=2{\partial U\over \partial x^i}$$

What went wrong, where? Are my approaches and formulae correct?


share|cite|improve this question
You get the factor 2 because the Christoffel symbols are symmetric in their lower indices. Therefore, you read off $\Gamma^0_{0i} + \Gamma^0_{i0}$ from the geodesic equation. – Martin Ueding Jul 12 '14 at 15:15
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The first one is probably correct, and you are likely not counting correctly in the second method. You should compare you result

$\ddot{t}+ 2 \frac{\partial U}{\partial x^{i}} \dot{x}_i \dot{t}=0$


$\ddot{t}+ \Gamma^0_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^{\nu}=0 $


$\ddot{t}+ \Gamma^0_{i 0} \dot{x}^i \dot{x}^{0}+ \Gamma^0_{0 i} \dot{x}^0 \dot{x}^{i}=0 $

which is

$\ddot{t}+ \Gamma^0_{i 0} \dot{x}^i \dot{t} + \Gamma^0_{0 i} \dot{t} \dot{x}^{i}= \ddot{t}+ 2\Gamma^0_{i 0} \dot{x}^i \dot{t} = 0$.

Which yields

$\Gamma^0_{i 0} = \frac{\partial U}{\partial x^{i}}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, DJBunk! – Gene Apr 8 '13 at 18:26
+1: Thanks^2 DJBunk! – joshphysics Apr 8 '13 at 20:05
@Gene - no problem. I am pretty sure I lost an afternoon of my life to these factors of 2 at one point, so I am happy to help. – DJBunk Apr 8 '13 at 20:40

Couple mistakes:

  1. The second term in the metric should read $h_{ij}(\vec x)dx^idx^j$ not $h_{ij}(\vec x) \dot x^i\dot x^j$

  2. The first term in the Langrangian should have $\dot t^2$ instead of $dt^2$ which means that in the equation after the Lagrangian you should have a $\dot t^2$, and (I redid the calc.) this gives an answer that matches the first method without the extra factor of $2$.

Edit. My #2 doesn't solve the problem of the factor of two; BJBunk's answer does.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, Josh! Indeed, I should have $$L=\exp(2U(\vec x))\dot t^2-h_{ij}(\vec x) \dot x^i \dot x^j$$. But doesn't $${d\over d\tau}\left({\partial L\over \partial \dot t}\right)=0$$ and here $${\partial L\over \partial \dot t}=2\exp(2U(\vec x))\dot t$$ thus still giving $${d\over d\tau}\left(\exp(2U(\vec x))\dot t\right)=0$$? (Or am I just being stupid again? :/ ) – Gene Apr 8 '13 at 18:08
@Gene No, you're right, I was being careless my apologies. Now this is bothering me; I'll try to think about this more. – joshphysics Apr 8 '13 at 18:54
@Gene I just read DJBunk's answer and realized he resolves the issue. Sorry if I caused any confusion. – joshphysics Apr 8 '13 at 20:03

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.