5
$\begingroup$

I know that if we have a Killing vector then it's straightforward to show the identity:

$$\nabla_a \nabla_b K_c = R_{cba}^k K_d$$

I'm now trying to show the following identity for a $(0,2)$ Killing tensor:

$$\nabla_{(a}\nabla_b K_{c)d} = - R_{d(ab}^{e}K_{c)e} $$

I know that I should use the fact that a Killing tensor $K_{ab}$ is symmetric and satisfies $\nabla_{(a}K_{bc)}=0$.

I've tried writing out $$(\nabla_a \nabla_b - \nabla_b\nabla_a)K_{cd} = R_{abc}^eK_{ce} + R_{and}^eK_{de}$$ and taking various permutations over a, b and c but haven't been able to make much progress with this and would appreciate some insight into this!

I also wondered if such identities generalise? Do we always have a relation for a $(0,n)$ Killing tensor that relates it's second derivatives to an algebraic relation with the Riemann tensor?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The calculations and references provided in this paper (arxiv.org/abs/0907.5470) by Cook and Dray might be helpful. See theorem 1 on page 4 in particular. $\endgroup$ May 22, 2016 at 9:31
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure this statement is true? $\nabla_{(a}\nabla_bK_{cd)} = \nabla_{a}\nabla_{(b}K_{cd)} + \nabla_{b}\nabla_{(a}K_{cd)} + \nabla_{c}\nabla_{(a}K_{bd)} + \nabla_{d}\nabla_{(a}K_{bc)} $. By killing equation, each term on RHS is a derivative of an everywhere zero function, hence LHS is 0. So looks like your LHS should identically vanish. $\endgroup$
    – zzz
    May 24, 2016 at 1:35
  • $\begingroup$ @bianchira Yes, thanks for spotting that! The symmetrisation should only be around a,b and c, I've edited now. $\endgroup$
    – Wooster
    May 24, 2016 at 8:25

1 Answer 1

3
+50
$\begingroup$

First of all we need the equation: \begin{equation}\require{Amsmath} 2\nabla_{[a} \nabla_{b]} K_{cd} = R_{abc}{}^e K_{ed} + R_{abd}{}^e K_{ce} = 2 R_{ab(c} K_{d)e}\tag{1}.\label{eq:KT} \end{equation} We have: $$R_{d(ba}{}^e K_{c)e} = \frac{1}{3}(R_{db(a}{}^e K_{c)e} + R_{da(b}{}^e K_{c)e} + R_{dc(b}{}^e K_{a)e}) = \frac{1}{3} (\nabla_{[d} \nabla_{b]} K_{ac} + \nabla_{[d} \nabla_{a]} K_{bc} + \nabla_{[a} \nabla_{c]} K_{ba}),$$ where we used equation \eqref{eq:KT}. Now we express some terms so that index $d$ is removed from the covariant derivatives using $\nabla_{(a} K_{bc)} = 0$, thus the previous expression becomes: $$\frac{1}{3!} (\nabla_d \nabla_b K_{ac} + \nabla_b \nabla_a K_{dc} + \nabla_b \nabla_c K_{ad} + \nabla_d \nabla_a K_{bc} + \nabla_a \nabla_b K_{dc} + \nabla_a \nabla_c K_{db} + \nabla_d \nabla_c K_{ba} + \nabla_c \nabla_b K_{da} + \nabla_c \nabla_a K_{bd}) = \nabla_d \nabla_{(a} K_{bc)} + \nabla_{(a} \nabla_b K_{c)d},$$ which proves the identity.

Regarding the question about generalisation, one indication that it is possible is that if $K^a$ is a Killing vector, one can form a Killing tensor by writing $K^a K^b$ etc, and induction shows that an equation involving double covariant derivatives and Riemann tensors exists.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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