Why, when going from special to general relativity, do we just replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDifference 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*?
Could you use a laser beam as a modulated carrier wave for radio signal?
Why did the Drakh emissary look so blurred in S04:E11 "Lines of Communication"?
Direct Implications Between USA and UK in Event of No-Deal Brexit
Ising model simulation
It it possible to avoid kiwi.com's automatic online check-in and instead do it manually by yourself?
Car headlights in a world without electricity
My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to login to her iPad, do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?
How to find if SQL server backup is encrypted with TDE without restoring the backup
Compilation of a 2d array and a 1d array
Traveling with my 5 year old daughter (as the father) without the mother from Germany to Mexico
Fastest algorithm to decide whether a (always halting) TM accepts a general string
Gauss' Posthumous Publications?
Can you teleport closer to a creature you are Frightened of?
Is it OK to decorate a log book cover?
How to unfasten electrical subpanel attached with ramset
What steps are necessary to read a Modern SSD in Medieval Europe?
Man transported from Alternate World into ours by a Neutrino Detector
Cannot restore registry to default in Windows 10?
Is it possible to make a 9x9 table fit within the default margins?
Shortening a title without changing its meaning
Variance of Monte Carlo integration with importance sampling
What did the word "leisure" mean in late 18th Century usage?
Is it correct to say moon starry nights?
Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?
Why, when going from special to general relativity, do we just replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDifference 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 2 days ago
Ben Crowell
53.6k6165313
53.6k6165313
asked 2 days ago
Toby PeterkenToby Peterken
452216
452216
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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 |
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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).
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
DanielC
1,7181919
1,7181919
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Filipe MiguelFilipe Miguel
442112
442112
New contributor
New contributor
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 2 days ago
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 2 days ago
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,3501214
3,3501214
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