0
$\begingroup$

Under a local change of coordinates $x\to x'=x+\delta x$, the metric transforms as $$g_{\mu \nu}^{\prime}\left(x^{\prime}\right)=g_{\lambda \rho}(x) \frac{\partial x^{\lambda}}{\partial x^{\prime \mu}} \frac{\partial x^{\rho}}{\partial x^{\prime \nu}}$$ I am trying to show $$\delta g_{\mu \nu}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(g_{\mu \lambda} \partial^{v} \delta x_{\lambda}+g_{\lambda \nu} \partial^{\mu} \delta x_{\lambda}+\partial^{\lambda} g_{\mu \nu} \delta x_{\lambda}\right)$$

Other references, including a few answers I found in this website, are missing this factor of one half. My own derivation also misses it. I wonder where this come from. Here is my approach:

$$g'_{\mu\nu}(x+\delta x)=g'_{\mu\nu}(x)+\delta x^\lambda\partial_\lambda g'_{\mu\nu}\approx g'_{\mu\nu}(x)+\delta x^\lambda\partial_\lambda g_{\mu\nu}$$ where in the last equation, I neglected $\delta x^\lambda\partial_\lambda\delta g_{\mu\nu}$ as it is a second order change.

Since $x'^\mu=x^\mu+\delta x^\mu$, we have $$\frac{\partial x'^\mu}{\partial x^\nu}=\delta^\mu_\nu+\frac{\partial \delta x^\mu}{\partial x^\nu}\implies \frac{\partial x^\nu}{\partial x'^\mu}=\delta^\nu_\mu-\frac{\partial \delta x^\nu}{\partial x^\mu}$$ Hence $$g'_{\mu\nu}(x)+\delta x^\lambda\partial_\lambda g_{\mu\nu}=g_{\lambda\rho}\left(\delta^\lambda_\mu-\frac{\partial \delta x^\lambda}{\partial x^\mu}\right)\left(\delta^\rho_\nu-\frac{\partial \delta x^\rho}{\partial x^\nu}\right)$$ Or equivalently $$\delta g_{\mu\nu}=g'_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}=-\left(g_{\lambda\nu}{\partial_\mu \delta x^\lambda}+g_{\mu\lambda}{\partial_\nu \delta x^\lambda}+\partial_\lambda g_{\mu\nu}\delta x^\lambda\right)$$ which, as one can see, misses the factor of $\frac 12$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ There isn't supposed to be a factor of 1/2. $\endgroup$
    – Prahar
    May 11 at 14:25

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I think that you are trying to compute the Lie derivative of the metric. If so, there should be no factor of 1/2. Under an infinitesimal shift $x^\mu\to x^\mu +\eta^\mu$ we have $g \to g+ {\mathcal L}_\eta g$ $$ ({\mathcal L}_\eta g)_{\mu\nu}= \eta^\lambda\partial_\lambda g_{\mu\nu}+ g_{\mu\lambda}\partial_\nu \eta^\lambda + g_{\lambda\nu }\partial_\mu \eta^\lambda $$ see section 11.2.2 on Lie Derivatives in https://goldbart.gatech.edu/PostScript/MS_PG_book/bookmaster.pdf and in particular eq 11.38 and its its dervation.

The factor of 1/2 does appear in the definition of the strain tensor which, for historical reasons, is defined as 1/2 of the Lie derivatve. See exercise 11.3 on the next page of the book.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Exactly so! It looks like you are one of the authors of the book, I do own a physical copy of this book and I am current reading it. So far it has been great! There is a typo on page 745 (Appendix A), part (iv) of Exercise A.1, which reads "Given $x, y$ in $V$ , there is a unique $z$ such that $x+z = y$, to whit $z = x-y.$", I think "whit" is supposed to mean "wit", and $z=y-x$. I didn't find this in the errata, so it might be good to know. (I think I am abusing comments here, feel free to delete it if it's irrelevant). $\endgroup$
    – Sofvar
    May 11 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ Yes that's me --- and I am still embarrassed by that whit-wit error. It's not a typo, but just grammatical ignorance. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    May 11 at 18:45

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.