0
$\begingroup$

I want to evaluate an expression of the form $$\nabla_\lambda (Y^\eta \partial_\eta Z^\rho).\tag{1}$$

I'm not sure about how to write down the connection term. My guess is:

$$\nabla_\lambda (Y^\eta \partial_\eta Z^\rho) = \partial_\lambda (Y^\eta \partial_\eta Z^\rho) + Y^\eta \partial_\eta (\Gamma^\rho_{\lambda \alpha} Z^\alpha ) \tag{2}$$

Is this correct?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Which are the scalars? Also, assuming $Y$ and $Z$ are vectors, why not $\nabla_{\lambda} \left( Y^{\eta} \nabla_{\eta} Z^{\rho}\right)$ instead? $\endgroup$
    – secavara
    Commented Jan 29, 2018 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ @secavara The $\eta$ index is contracted so I suppose $ Y^\eta \partial_\eta$ can be called a scalar? $\nabla_{\lambda} ( Y^{\eta} \nabla_{\eta} Z^{\rho})$ is indeed the expression I started with, but I expanded the inner covariant derivative term. $\endgroup$
    – cord
    Commented Jan 29, 2018 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately you can't ignore the indices of contracted tensors if you want to expand the covariant derivative. This means that you get $\nabla_{\lambda} \left( Y^{\eta} \nabla_{\eta} Z^{\rho}\right) = \partial_\lambda \left(Y^{\eta} \nabla_{\eta} Z^{\rho} \right) + \Gamma^{\eta}_{\lambda \alpha} Y^{\alpha} \nabla_{\eta} Z^{\rho} - \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\lambda \eta} Y^{\eta} \nabla_{\alpha} Z^{\rho} + \Gamma^{\rho}_{\lambda \alpha} Y^{\eta} \nabla_{\eta} Z^{\alpha} .$ $\endgroup$
    – secavara
    Commented Jan 29, 2018 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, the part that confuses me is that in Carroll's book he explicitly writes an equation like $\nabla_{\mu} (\omega_{\lambda} V^\lambda) = \partial_\mu( \omega_{\lambda} V^\lambda)$. That's where I got the idea of not including the connection terms for the contracted indices. $\endgroup$
    – cord
    Commented Jan 29, 2018 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ Right, notice that the second and third term in the right hand side of the expression I wrote cancel each other, but notice that this is still a statement about $\nabla_{\lambda} \left( Y^{\eta} \nabla_{\eta} Z^{\rho}\right)$ and not $\nabla_{\lambda} \left( Y^{\eta} \partial_{\eta} Z^{\rho}\right)$ and notice where the connection enters in the last term. $\endgroup$
    – secavara
    Commented Jan 29, 2018 at 19:23

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

The problem is that $X^{\rho}:= Y^{\eta} \partial_{\eta} Z^{\rho}$ is not components of a vector field (if we assume that $Y^{\eta}$ and $Z^{\rho}$ are components of vector fields). So the covariant derivative $\nabla_{\lambda}X^{\rho}$ in OP's first expression (1) does not make geometric sense.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In general you are correct but it might be from a commutator $X:=[Y,Z]$, written in local coordinates, that is just confusing. $\endgroup$
    – Gonenc
    Commented Jan 29, 2018 at 19:23

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.