Why, when going from special to general relativity, do we just replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDifference between $partial$ and $nabla$ in general relativityMetric tensor in special and general relativityGeneral relativity from helicity 2 massless field theory by using Deser's argumentsProblem in General Relativity (metric tensor covariant derivative / indexes)Motivation for covariant derivative axioms in the context of General RelativityWhat is the motivation from Physics for the Levi-Civita connection on GR?Regarding $T^munu;_mu=0$ in general relativityOn covariant derivativeChristoffel symbol derivation in book by WaldWhen can we raise lower indices on “nontensors” as described in Dirac's book *General Theory of Relativity*?
Using xargs with pdftk
Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?
Slides for 30 min~1 hr Skype tenure track application interview
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
Why was M87 targeted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?
How can I connect public and private node through a reverse SSH tunnel?
Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
Output the Arecibo Message
"as much details as you can remember"
Falsification in Math vs Science
Right tool to dig six foot holes?
What is the grammatical structure of "Il est de formation classique"?
Worn-tile Scrabble
How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?
The phrase "to the numbers born"?
Can a rogue use sneak attack with weapons that have the thrown property even if they are not thrown?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
If a sorcerer casts the Banishment spell on a PC while in Avernus, does the PC return to their home plane?
How to type a long/em dash `—`
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
Why, when going from special to general relativity, do we just replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDifference between $partial$ and $nabla$ in general relativityMetric tensor in special and general relativityGeneral relativity from helicity 2 massless field theory by using Deser's argumentsProblem in General Relativity (metric tensor covariant derivative / indexes)Motivation for covariant derivative axioms in the context of General RelativityWhat is the motivation from Physics for the Levi-Civita connection on GR?Regarding $T^munu;_mu=0$ in general relativityOn covariant derivativeChristoffel symbol derivation in book by WaldWhen can we raise lower indices on “nontensors” as described in Dirac's book *General Theory of Relativity*?
$begingroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
I understand that covariant derivatives become partial derivatives in Minkowski space however is the reverse unique? Is there no other tensor operation which becomes a partial derivative / if so why do we not mention them?
general-relativity special-relativity differential-geometry tensor-calculus differentiation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
I understand that covariant derivatives become partial derivatives in Minkowski space however is the reverse unique? Is there no other tensor operation which becomes a partial derivative / if so why do we not mention them?
general-relativity special-relativity differential-geometry tensor-calculus differentiation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
I understand that covariant derivatives become partial derivatives in Minkowski space however is the reverse unique? Is there no other tensor operation which becomes a partial derivative / if so why do we not mention them?
general-relativity special-relativity differential-geometry tensor-calculus differentiation
$endgroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
I understand that covariant derivatives become partial derivatives in Minkowski space however is the reverse unique? Is there no other tensor operation which becomes a partial derivative / if so why do we not mention them?
general-relativity special-relativity differential-geometry tensor-calculus differentiation
general-relativity special-relativity differential-geometry tensor-calculus differentiation
edited Mar 30 at 15:08
Ben Crowell
54k6165313
54k6165313
asked Mar 30 at 11:36
Toby PeterkenToby Peterken
457216
457216
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Transforming partial derivatives to covariant derivatives when going from Minkowski to a general spacetime is just a rule of thumb, and should not be applied carelessly.
For example, when studying electromagnetism in the Lorenz gauge $(nabla_mu A^mu =0)$, working from first principles, one can show that the inhomogeneous wave equation reads:
$$nabla_nu nabla^nu A^mu - R^mu_,,nu A^nu = -j^mu$$
whereas in Minkowski the same equation reads:
$$partial_nu partial^nu A^mu = -j^mu$$
If we used $partialrightarrownabla$, we would not find the contribution of the curvature term. Although in general the $partialrightarrownabla$ might work, to be safe you should try to derive physical rules using a covariant approach (e.g. from an action principle).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right that it is not unique. The rule you mention is called minimal coupling. It is similar to electromagnetism when we replace $p_mu$ by $p_mu - eA_mu$ in our first-order equations. This is the simplest approach one could take, in which you just add a term describing, e.g. electromagnetism, to the action, and then it just couples to gravity through the metric in the volume element.
There are other ways of doing so by contracting the Ricci tensor with the field strength tensor, for instance, but these are non-minimal. We make choices like these all the time, even in choosing the form of the connection in the covariant derivative. So the answer in the end is that this minimal approach agrees with experiment to their current accuracies, so why complicate things?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
Maybe but IMHO it's a wrong idea. Covariant derivatives are needed in SR too, if you wish to use arbitrary coordinates. Which is completely allowed even though generally inconvenient. But there are exceptions - see e.g. Rindler's coordinates.
Of course in a curved spacetime you're obliged to use coordinates where metric takes a complicated form, simply because a coordinate system which diagonalizes the metric tensor to constant components in a finite region doesn't exist. Then covariant derivative is an imperative tool.
But there's no warranty that it's a sufficient method to obtain the right physical laws in GR. @DanielC already gave a classical example.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469527%2fwhy-when-going-from-special-to-general-relativity-do-we-just-replace-partial-d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Transforming partial derivatives to covariant derivatives when going from Minkowski to a general spacetime is just a rule of thumb, and should not be applied carelessly.
For example, when studying electromagnetism in the Lorenz gauge $(nabla_mu A^mu =0)$, working from first principles, one can show that the inhomogeneous wave equation reads:
$$nabla_nu nabla^nu A^mu - R^mu_,,nu A^nu = -j^mu$$
whereas in Minkowski the same equation reads:
$$partial_nu partial^nu A^mu = -j^mu$$
If we used $partialrightarrownabla$, we would not find the contribution of the curvature term. Although in general the $partialrightarrownabla$ might work, to be safe you should try to derive physical rules using a covariant approach (e.g. from an action principle).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Transforming partial derivatives to covariant derivatives when going from Minkowski to a general spacetime is just a rule of thumb, and should not be applied carelessly.
For example, when studying electromagnetism in the Lorenz gauge $(nabla_mu A^mu =0)$, working from first principles, one can show that the inhomogeneous wave equation reads:
$$nabla_nu nabla^nu A^mu - R^mu_,,nu A^nu = -j^mu$$
whereas in Minkowski the same equation reads:
$$partial_nu partial^nu A^mu = -j^mu$$
If we used $partialrightarrownabla$, we would not find the contribution of the curvature term. Although in general the $partialrightarrownabla$ might work, to be safe you should try to derive physical rules using a covariant approach (e.g. from an action principle).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Transforming partial derivatives to covariant derivatives when going from Minkowski to a general spacetime is just a rule of thumb, and should not be applied carelessly.
For example, when studying electromagnetism in the Lorenz gauge $(nabla_mu A^mu =0)$, working from first principles, one can show that the inhomogeneous wave equation reads:
$$nabla_nu nabla^nu A^mu - R^mu_,,nu A^nu = -j^mu$$
whereas in Minkowski the same equation reads:
$$partial_nu partial^nu A^mu = -j^mu$$
If we used $partialrightarrownabla$, we would not find the contribution of the curvature term. Although in general the $partialrightarrownabla$ might work, to be safe you should try to derive physical rules using a covariant approach (e.g. from an action principle).
$endgroup$
Transforming partial derivatives to covariant derivatives when going from Minkowski to a general spacetime is just a rule of thumb, and should not be applied carelessly.
For example, when studying electromagnetism in the Lorenz gauge $(nabla_mu A^mu =0)$, working from first principles, one can show that the inhomogeneous wave equation reads:
$$nabla_nu nabla^nu A^mu - R^mu_,,nu A^nu = -j^mu$$
whereas in Minkowski the same equation reads:
$$partial_nu partial^nu A^mu = -j^mu$$
If we used $partialrightarrownabla$, we would not find the contribution of the curvature term. Although in general the $partialrightarrownabla$ might work, to be safe you should try to derive physical rules using a covariant approach (e.g. from an action principle).
edited Mar 30 at 12:35
DanielC
1,7181919
1,7181919
answered Mar 30 at 12:15
Filipe MiguelFilipe Miguel
394112
394112
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right that it is not unique. The rule you mention is called minimal coupling. It is similar to electromagnetism when we replace $p_mu$ by $p_mu - eA_mu$ in our first-order equations. This is the simplest approach one could take, in which you just add a term describing, e.g. electromagnetism, to the action, and then it just couples to gravity through the metric in the volume element.
There are other ways of doing so by contracting the Ricci tensor with the field strength tensor, for instance, but these are non-minimal. We make choices like these all the time, even in choosing the form of the connection in the covariant derivative. So the answer in the end is that this minimal approach agrees with experiment to their current accuracies, so why complicate things?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right that it is not unique. The rule you mention is called minimal coupling. It is similar to electromagnetism when we replace $p_mu$ by $p_mu - eA_mu$ in our first-order equations. This is the simplest approach one could take, in which you just add a term describing, e.g. electromagnetism, to the action, and then it just couples to gravity through the metric in the volume element.
There are other ways of doing so by contracting the Ricci tensor with the field strength tensor, for instance, but these are non-minimal. We make choices like these all the time, even in choosing the form of the connection in the covariant derivative. So the answer in the end is that this minimal approach agrees with experiment to their current accuracies, so why complicate things?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right that it is not unique. The rule you mention is called minimal coupling. It is similar to electromagnetism when we replace $p_mu$ by $p_mu - eA_mu$ in our first-order equations. This is the simplest approach one could take, in which you just add a term describing, e.g. electromagnetism, to the action, and then it just couples to gravity through the metric in the volume element.
There are other ways of doing so by contracting the Ricci tensor with the field strength tensor, for instance, but these are non-minimal. We make choices like these all the time, even in choosing the form of the connection in the covariant derivative. So the answer in the end is that this minimal approach agrees with experiment to their current accuracies, so why complicate things?
$endgroup$
You are right that it is not unique. The rule you mention is called minimal coupling. It is similar to electromagnetism when we replace $p_mu$ by $p_mu - eA_mu$ in our first-order equations. This is the simplest approach one could take, in which you just add a term describing, e.g. electromagnetism, to the action, and then it just couples to gravity through the metric in the volume element.
There are other ways of doing so by contracting the Ricci tensor with the field strength tensor, for instance, but these are non-minimal. We make choices like these all the time, even in choosing the form of the connection in the covariant derivative. So the answer in the end is that this minimal approach agrees with experiment to their current accuracies, so why complicate things?
answered Mar 30 at 12:27
gmaroccogmarocco
1415
1415
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
Maybe but IMHO it's a wrong idea. Covariant derivatives are needed in SR too, if you wish to use arbitrary coordinates. Which is completely allowed even though generally inconvenient. But there are exceptions - see e.g. Rindler's coordinates.
Of course in a curved spacetime you're obliged to use coordinates where metric takes a complicated form, simply because a coordinate system which diagonalizes the metric tensor to constant components in a finite region doesn't exist. Then covariant derivative is an imperative tool.
But there's no warranty that it's a sufficient method to obtain the right physical laws in GR. @DanielC already gave a classical example.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
Maybe but IMHO it's a wrong idea. Covariant derivatives are needed in SR too, if you wish to use arbitrary coordinates. Which is completely allowed even though generally inconvenient. But there are exceptions - see e.g. Rindler's coordinates.
Of course in a curved spacetime you're obliged to use coordinates where metric takes a complicated form, simply because a coordinate system which diagonalizes the metric tensor to constant components in a finite region doesn't exist. Then covariant derivative is an imperative tool.
But there's no warranty that it's a sufficient method to obtain the right physical laws in GR. @DanielC already gave a classical example.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
Maybe but IMHO it's a wrong idea. Covariant derivatives are needed in SR too, if you wish to use arbitrary coordinates. Which is completely allowed even though generally inconvenient. But there are exceptions - see e.g. Rindler's coordinates.
Of course in a curved spacetime you're obliged to use coordinates where metric takes a complicated form, simply because a coordinate system which diagonalizes the metric tensor to constant components in a finite region doesn't exist. Then covariant derivative is an imperative tool.
But there's no warranty that it's a sufficient method to obtain the right physical laws in GR. @DanielC already gave a classical example.
$endgroup$
I've come across several references to the idea that to upgrade a law of physics to general relativity all you have to do is replace any partial derivatives with covariant derivatives.
Maybe but IMHO it's a wrong idea. Covariant derivatives are needed in SR too, if you wish to use arbitrary coordinates. Which is completely allowed even though generally inconvenient. But there are exceptions - see e.g. Rindler's coordinates.
Of course in a curved spacetime you're obliged to use coordinates where metric takes a complicated form, simply because a coordinate system which diagonalizes the metric tensor to constant components in a finite region doesn't exist. Then covariant derivative is an imperative tool.
But there's no warranty that it's a sufficient method to obtain the right physical laws in GR. @DanielC already gave a classical example.
answered Mar 30 at 20:44
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,5951214
3,5951214
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469527%2fwhy-when-going-from-special-to-general-relativity-do-we-just-replace-partial-d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown