In Sec. 12.1 of 'Superstring Theory', by Green, Schwarz, and Witten, the minimal spin connection is motivated as follows:

If we are to avoid modifying the standard content of general relativity, the two notions of the covariant derivative of a vector $V$ must be equivalent. This will be so, in the sense that $D_{\mu}V^{a} = e^{a\nu}D_{\mu}V_{\nu}$, if we define the spin connection so that the covariant derivative of the veilbein is zero, $D_{\mu}e^{a}_{\nu}=0$.

Until recently, I have always thought that this argument was quite sensible. But now I have doubts, due to the following considerations: The covariant derivative of a vector field $A$, say, in local Lorentz coordinates is given by

$$D_{\mu }A_{a} \equiv\partial _{\mu }A_{a}-\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu cd}\left( V^{cd}\right) ^{b}{}_{a}A_{b} =\partial _{\mu }A_{a}-\omega _{\mu }{}^{b}{}_{a}A_{b},$$

where $V^{cd}$ are the generators of the vector representation of the Lorentz group, given by $(V^{cd})^{a}{}_{b} = \eta ^{ca}\delta _{b}^{d}-\eta ^{da}\delta _{b}^{c}$. But then, using as well the standard expression for $D_{\mu }e^{a}{}_{\nu }$,

\begin{align} D_{\mu }A_{\nu } & = D_{\mu }\left( e^{a}{}_{\nu }A_{a}\right) \\ &=\left( D_{\mu }e^{a}{}_{\nu }\right) A_{a}+e^{a}{}_{\nu }D_{\mu }A_{a} \\ &=\left( \partial _{\mu }e^{a}{}_{\nu }-\Gamma ^{\rho }{}_{\mu \nu }e^{a}{}_{\rho }+\omega _{\mu }{}^{a}{}_{b}e^{b}{}_{\nu }\right) A_{a}+e^{a}{}_{\nu }\left( \partial _{\mu }A_{a}-\omega _{\mu }{}^{b}{}_{a}A_{b}\right) \\ &=\left( \partial _{\mu }e^{a}{}_{\nu }\right) A_{a}-\Gamma ^{\rho }{}_{\mu \nu }e^{a}{}_{\rho }A_{a}+e^{a}{}_{\nu } \partial _{\mu }A_{a} \\ &=\partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\Gamma ^{\rho }{}_{\mu \nu }A_{\rho } \\ &\equiv \nabla _{\mu }A_{\nu }, \end{align}

where $\Gamma ^{\rho }{}_{\mu \nu}$ are the Christoffel symbols. The derivation depends only on the antisymmetry of the spin connection, not on it being minimal. But if $D_{\mu }A_{\nu }=\nabla _{\mu }A_{\nu }$, as thus seems to be the case, then the covariant derivative of any tensor field (as a tensor product of vector fields) is the standard GR one, and thus the standard content of GR would seem to be unaltered. Am I doing something fundamentally wrong?


I suppose the vielbein is a vector bundle isomorphism $e: TM \to E$, for some vector bundle $E$. Your source seems to be using $D_\mu$ where you want to use $\nabla_\mu$. Thus $D_\mu A_\nu = \nabla_\mu A_\nu$ is a vacuous statement in the sense that $\nabla_\mu$ seems meaningless in the authors' notation. What you want to show is that $$D_\mu A^a = e^{a}{}_\nu D_\mu A^\nu. \tag{1}$$ Notice that in this expression, the left hand side contains the covariant derivative of an element of $E,$ while $D_\mu A^\nu$ is a covariant derivative of an element of $TM$. What you want to show is that the image of the latter under $e$ equals the former.

Your mistake is that you consider $D_\mu A_\nu$ to be something different from $\nabla_\mu A_\nu$, when really they are two different notations for the same thing. Thus your result is just the trivial identity $D_\mu A_\nu = D_\mu A_\nu$. Expanding on this note that \begin{align} D_\mu A_\nu &= D_\mu (e^a{}_\nu A_a) \end{align} is a covariant derivative on $TM^*$, and in expanding it you assume a connection on $TM^*$, namely the Levi-Civita one, which you call $\nabla$. Continuing: \begin{align} D_\mu A_\nu &= D_\mu (e^a{}_\nu A_a) \\ &= \partial_\mu (e^a{}_\nu A_a) - \Gamma^\rho{}_{\mu\nu}(e^a{}_\rho A_a), \end{align} where $\Gamma$ are the connection coefficients of your assumed connection (Christoffel symbols). What you do next is expand the first term over the contraction over the index $a$ in terms of the covariant derivative on $E$. This is no different than when we say that e.g. $\partial_\mu (A^aB_a) = B_a\nabla_\mu A^a + A^a\nabla_\mu B_a,$ and the result is guaranteed to be consistent from the standard Leibniz rule (naturality with respect to contraction), since $\nu$ is now a function index (incidentally, this is why the covariant derivative of $e^a{}_\nu$ is now defined regardless of view, below, since it is the image of $\partial_\nu$: $e(\partial_\nu) \in E$). Thus finally: \begin{align} D_\mu A_\nu &= D_\mu (e^a{}_\nu A_a) \\ &= \partial_\mu (e^a{}_\nu A_a) - \Gamma^\rho{}_{\mu\nu}(e^a{}_\rho A_a) \\ &= A_a\left(\partial_\mu e^a{}_\nu - \Gamma^\rho{}_{\mu\nu}e^a{}_{\rho} + \omega_\mu{}^a{}_b e^b{}_\nu\right) + e^a{}_\nu\left(\partial_\mu A_a - \omega_\mu{}^b{}_a A_b\right), \end{align} which is your result. As you can see it follows from you assuming that $D_\mu$ acts like $\nabla_\mu$ on $TM^*$, i.e. that $D_\mu = \nabla_\mu$ there, and the standard way of inducing a connection on $E^*$ from one on $E$. This assumption of yours is not wrong, because we want the covariant derivative on $TM$ (and $TM^*$) to be the Levi-Civita connection, but it makes the statement $D_\mu A_\nu = \nabla_\mu A_\nu$ trivial (since it is assumed).

To clarify: we seek to define a connection on $E$, but this does not define a new connection on $TM$. The connection on $TM$ remains the Levi-Civita connection, whether we use the symbol $D_\mu$ or $\nabla_\mu$.

Here follows one way look at why $(1)$ must be true: Thus the statement $(1)$ seeks an induced connection on $E$ (given one on $TM$, the Levi-Civita) that is natural with respect to $e$, in the sense that $e$ then commutes with the covariant derivatives. What this means is that it does not matter when we map the covariant derivative of a vector (and in extension any tensor) to $E$ (corresponding tensor bundle), before or after the derivative is applied, which is obviously desirable if our purpose is that $E$ and $TM$ describe the same physical content. In this context, one would use $(1)$ to define $D_\mu V^a$: \begin{align}\begin{split} D_\mu A^a &= e^{a}{}_\nu D_\mu A^\nu \\ \partial_\mu A^a + \omega_\mu{}^a{}_bA^b &= e^a{}_\nu\left(\partial_\mu A^\nu + \Gamma^\nu{}_{\mu\rho}A^\rho \right) \\ \end{split} &&\iff \omega_\mu{}^a{}_b &= e_b{}^\rho \left(-\partial_\mu e^a{}_\rho + e^a{}_\sigma\Gamma^\sigma{}_{\mu\rho}\right), \end{align} where we used the fact that $e^a{}_\nu e_a{}^\mu = \delta^\mu_\nu$. Using this fact again, and contracting with $e^b{}_\nu$ on both sides yields $$ \partial_\mu e^a{}_\nu - e^a{}_{\rho}\Gamma^\rho{}_{\mu\nu} + \omega_\mu{}^a{}_be^b{}_\nu = 0, $$ but I want to emphasize that, a priori, we cannot equate the left hand side with $D_\mu e^a{}_\nu$, since $e$ is neither a tangent vector nor an element of $E$. However, this way of thinking makes obvious that $(1)$ is certainly required to ensure that working on $E$ and transforming back to $TM$ yields the same result as working on $TM$.

Here is how it follows from your standard expression: Your "standard expression" for $D_\mu e^a{}_\nu$ seems to imply we should rather consider $e^a{}_\nu$ as an element of $E \otimes TM^*$, with $D_\mu$ acting on $(S,X) \in E\otimes TM^*$ according to a Leibniz rule of sort: $D_\mu(S,X) = (D_\mu S,X) + (S,D_\mu X)$. Any vector bundle isomorphism $TM\to E$ may, of course, rather be considered this way, and vice versa. With $e^a{}_\nu \in E \otimes TM^*$ considered this way, we find \begin{align} \tag{2} D_\mu A^a = A^\nu D_\mu e^a{}_\nu + e^a{}_\nu D_\mu A^{\nu}, \end{align} and $(1)$ is true if and only if the first term vanishes. Since this must hold for arbitrary vector fields we have $D_\mu e^a{}_\nu = 0$. Notice the similarity with metric compatibility, and the naturality with respect to contraction. Only this time, I feel it is less natural to consider this second approach, since we have no reason a priori to let $D_\mu$ act on $e^a{}_\nu$. Add to that that it appears to lead to a lot of confusion (not only in this question).

In conclusion: Either way of looking at it leads to the same result, once you accept that $(1)$ must be true, but I feel it is more natural to do so in the context of vector bundle isomorphisms. In the second approach, compare $(1)$ and $(2)$, and the result follows. But try to understand where $(1)$ comes from.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Dec 1 '17 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind: Please take a look at the page to which you link. The MathJax formatting has been lost. Do you think that that is conducive to further discussion? I don't. I expect your act to have effectively killed this thread. I actually feel intellectually malested. $\endgroup$ – John Fredsted Dec 1 '17 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnFredsted See this meta post for ways to activate MathJax in chat. The only thing not conducive to further discussion here is your immediate assumption that I don't know what I'm doing - please assume good faith. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Dec 1 '17 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ I am tapping out. $\endgroup$ – John Fredsted Dec 1 '17 at 17:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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