You are on page 1of 43


MITSKIEVICH, Guadalajara-New Delhi


Algebra of Riemannian Geometry

PLEASE SEE THE PAGES 8 & 9 IN COLOURS DIRECTLY ON THE SCREEN!!! Quite a number of expressions and relations of Riemannian geometry will be extensively used below. In existing literature [see for a traditional approach, e.g., Eisenhart (1926, 1933, 1972); Schouten and Struik (1935, 1938); as to a presentation of general relativity from the mathematical viewpoint, see Sachs and Wu (1977)], they are scattered in different parts of various publications, and the notations differ substantially from one source to another. Many relations are naturally given without derivation. The reader may skip this section but look into it merely for clarification of some formulae. It is worth emphasizing that we take everywhere the speed of light equal to unity (c = 1), the space-time signature being (+ − −−); the Greek indices are four-dimensional, running from 0 to 3, the Einstein summation convention is adopted, including collective indices. Symmetrization and antisymmetrization with respect to sets of indices are denoted by the standard Bach brackets, (· · · ) and [· · · ] respectively, with the indices in the brackets. Tetrad indices are written in separate parentheses, e.g., F(µ)(ν) . For important details of abstract representation of the tensor calculus and its applications to field theory, see (Israel 1970, Ryan and Shepley 1975, Eguchi, Gilkey and Hanson 1980, Choquet-Bruhat, DeWitt-Morette and Dillard-Bleick 1982, von Westenholz 1986). We admit that the tensor algebra in an arbitrary basis and in abstract notations, is commonly known. Hence we begin with the Cartan forms. To make notations shorter, we shall sometimes employ collective indices, e.g. in the basis of a p-form [cf. Mitskievich and Merkulov (1985)]: dxa := dxα1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxαp , thus a = {α1 , α2 , . . . , αp } (1.1)

(completely skew-symmetrized). Here exterior (wedge) product is supposed to be an antisymmetrization of the tensorial product, dxα1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxαp := dx[α1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ dxαp ] . 1 (1.2)

Similarly, we shall write tetrad basis of a p-form as θ(a) (then a collective or individual index in the parentheses pertains to a tetrad field); this construction being analogous to dxa , and representing an exterior product of the covector basis 1-forms, θ(α) = g (α) β dxβ . Here g (α) β are the covariant tetrad components corresponding to the lower index β of a set of four independent covectors (enumerated by the tetrad index (α)). We write the tetrad index in its individual parentheses immediately after the root letter g, the same as that of the metric tensor, only then followed by the (coordinated) component number (here, β).1 Then a p-form α can be written as α = αa dxa = α(a) θ(a) , while α ∧ β = (−1)pq β ∧ α (1.3)

where p = deg α, q = deg β (degrees — or ranks — of the forms α and β). The axial tensor of Levi-Civit` is defined with help of the corresponding a symbol,2 Eαβγδ = (−g)1/2 αβγδ , E αβγδ = −(−g)−1/2 αβγδ . (1.4) We use the Levi-Civit` symbol strictly as a symbol, that is, in the sense that a it represents a set of constant scalars, so that one cannot raise or lower its indices; see however the footnote 2. To find some important properties of αβγδ , and to relate these properties to those of Kronecker’s deltas, let us somewhat formally consider an artificial
In the metric space, to which the pseudo-Riemannian space-time belongs, any tensor (in particular, vector) can be taken in its covariant and contravariant form (with respect to any of its indices) due to existence of the metric tensor which in fact is a generalization of a mere identity matrix; thus to the covariant basis θ(α) always corresponds the contravariant basis X(α) : this is the alternative use of the term “dual”. However such a duality has nothing in common with the duality involving the Levi-Civit` axial tensor. a 2 This means that the Levi-Civit` symbol itself can be simultaneously interpreted as a a contravariant axial tensor density (of weight +1) and a covariant axial tensor density of weight −1: αβγδ = −(−g)1/2 E αβγδ = (−g)−1/2 Eαβγδ . Remember that a tensor density is the corresponding tensor multiplied by (−g)w/2 where w is the weight of the tensor density, so that, for example, the transformation law of a scalar density (of weight w; −w for w = 1, as the Lagrangean density usually is denoted), is (x ) = |J| (x), |J| being absolute value of the Jacobian of the coordinate transformation. Thus the reader may find some discrepancies (from the physicists’ viewpoint) on p. 129 of the otherwise quite good book by B.F. Schutz (1980). One has to take into account that Schutz simply used the terminology utilized by mathematicians, in a contrast to physicists!





(however, well constructed) determinant
α δκ β δκ γ δκ δ δκ α δλ β δλ γ δλ δ δλ α δµ β δµ γ δµ δ δµ α δν β δν γ δν δ δν

αβγδ = Dκλµν


αβγδ (this Dκλµν still represents merely a notation). Due to the well-known general αβγδ properties of determinants, we immediately see that Dκλµν is skew symmetric in both all upper and all lower indices (each time in four indices which coincides with the 4 × 4-structure of the very determinant!). From (1.5) one already can understand the rˆle of Levi-Civit`’s epsilon in dealing with 4× 4o a αβγδ 0123 determinants in general. It is easy to figure out that Dκλµν ≡ D0123 αβγδ κλµν , 0123 while D0123 ≡ 1. Moreover, an immediate opening of the determinant in the left-hand side of (1.5) yields αβγδ β γ δ Dκλµν ≡ 4!δ[α δλ δµ δν] . κ


Thus we have shown that
αβγδ κ λµν β γ δ = 4!δ[α δλ δµ δν] , κ


or for the Levi-Civit` axial tensors, a
β γ δ E αβγδ Eκλµν = −4!δ[α δλ δµ δν] . κ


(In the last two expressions, it is remarkable how the products of epsilons and of the Levi-Civit` axial tensors — without any contractions! — are found to a be equal to products of the Kronecker deltas, also without contractions. Consecutive contractions of these relations (let us restrict them to those for the Levi-Civit` axial tensors) yield the general formula (we write it conveniently a using collective indices, both free and dummy ones)
b Eag E bg = −p!(4 − p)!δa ,


so that in all particular cases we have as a continuation of (1.8) the following relations:
β γ β E αβγν Eκλµν = −3!δ[α δλ δµ] , E αβµν Eκλµν = −2 · 2!δ[α δλ] , κ κ α E αλµν Eκλµν = −3!δκ , E κλµν Eκλµν = −4!




or, more symmetrically,
β γ β γ δ E αβγδ Eκλµν = −0!4!δ[α δλ δµ δν] , E αβγν Eκλµν = −1!3!δ[α δλ δµ] , κ κ β α E αβµν Eκλµν = −2!2!δ[α δλ] , E αλµν Eκλµν = −3!1!δκ , E κλµν Eκλµν = −4!0!. κ

The second expression in (1.4) is, of course, the result of raising the indices in the first expression: E κλµν = (−g)1/2 αβγβ g ακ g βλ g γµ g δν = (−g)1/2 κλµν det(g στ ) = (−g)1/2 /g κλµν = −(−g)−1/2 κλµν , Q.E.D.;3 det(g στ )= {det (gστ )}−1 . In our four-dimensional (essentially, even-dimensional) spacetime manifold, the Levi-Civit` axial tensor has the following properties: a Eag = (−1)p(4−p) Ega ≡ (−1)p Ega , b Eag E bg = −p!(4 − p)!δa ; #a = #b = p = 4 − #g. . (1.11)

While using here collective indices, we denote the number of individual indices contained in them, by #. The Kronecker symbol with collective indices is totally skew by a definition,
β1 b β b v bv δa ≡ δα1 ···βp := δ[α1 · · · δαp ] , δ[a δu] ≡ δau , 1 ···αp p β


b so that Aa δa ≡ Ab (let Aa be skew in all its individual indices). Dual conjugation of a form is denoted by the Hodge star ∗ [see Eguchi, Gilkey and Hanson (1980)] put before the form. The star acts on the basis as 1 ∗dxa := (4−p)! E a g dxg , ∗ α := αa ∗ dxa , √ 1 ∗1 = 4! Eαβγδ dxα ∧ dxβ ∧ dxγ ∧ dxδ = −g(dx)



(dx) being the four-dimensional volume element corresponding to the four covectors dx0 , dx1 , dx2 , and dx3 . Thus ∗ ∗ α = (−1)p+1 α (here evendimensional nature of the manifold is essential); in particular, ∗ ∗ 1 = −1. It is worth stressing that the sequence of the (lower and upper) indices is of great importance too, e.g. it was not the question of a chance when we wrote E a g and not Eg a [which in fact is equal to (−1)p E a g , cf. (1.11)]. Scalar multiplication of Cartan’s forms is realized with help of consecutive dual conjugations: ∗(dxk ∧ ∗dxal ) = (−1)p+1

(p + q)! [l a] δk dx , p!

#a = p, #k = q = #l



Quod erat demonstrandum (Latin).


Here dxk , of course, does not mean lowering of the indices of coordinates under the differential, this is, strictly speaking, the lowering of the collective index only after differentiation. In (1.14) it is important that #k + 4 − #(al) ≤4 The proof of (1.14) consists of the following steps: (I): ≥0 ∗ dxk ∧ ∗dxal = (II): E al g ∗ (dxk ∧ dxg ) ; (4 − p − q)!

Ek g b b ∗ (dxk ∧ dx ) = dx ; p!

(III): ∗ dxk ∧ ∗dxal = and this easily reduces to (IV): (−1)p E alg Ebkg b (−1)p+1 (p + q)! al b (−1)p+1 (p + q)! [l a] dx = δbk dx ≡ δk dx . p!(4 − p − q)! p! p! In particular, when we take in (1.14) a scalar multiplication of two 1forms, this gives ∗(dxλ ∧ ∗dxµ ) = ∗(dxκ ∧ ∗dxµ )g κλ = −g λµ . This last relation is equivalent to ∗(E µ πρσ dxλπρσ ) = E µ πρσ E λπρσ = −3! g λµ , as well as to dxα · dxβ = g αβ (1.17) (in fact, this property should be considered as introduction of a symmetric metric tensor g in the manifold under consideration). For the more general tetrad basis θ(α) we have θ(α) · θ(β) = g (α)(β) . (1.18) (1.16) (1.15) E alg Ekgb dxb ; p!(4 − p − q)!

Contravariant objects are treated with the use of the corresponding coordinated vector basis ∂µ or tetrad vector basis X(µ) (where necessary, their 5

tensor products). Here ∂µ is usually considered as the partial differen∂ tiation operator ∂xµ acting on (scalar) functions; see however comments in the next footnotes. The scalar product operation is defined so that α dxα · ∂µ ≡ ∂µ · dxα = δµ . The tetrad basis is related to its tetrad components (the covariant case was mentioned above; in the contravariant one, X(σ) = g(σ) µ ∂µ , hence X(σ) · dxα = g(σ) α , while θ(σ) · ∂α = g (σ) α ). Thus there always exists a pair of “conjugated” tetrads: one is the set of linearly independent contravariant vectors, X(σ) , and another, a set of linearly inα dependent covariant vectors, θ(σ) , so that g(σ) α g (σ) β = δβ and, equivalently, σ g(ρ) α g (σ) α = δρ : remember the alternative concept of “duality” mentioned above (not to be confused with the Hodge conjugation). The usual dual conjugation of a bivector will be also denoted by a star, but this will be written over (or under) the pair of indices to which it is applied, e.g. 1 (1.19) F κλ := E κλµν Fµν , ∗ 2 ∗∗ thus F αβ ≡ −Fαβ . It is obvious that Fκλ is skew (we called it bivector for this reason), so that the dual conjugation does not lead to any loss of information. Our choice of place for the star is justified here by the convenience in writing down the so-called crafty identities where asterisks are applied to different pairs of indices [see e.g. (Mitskievich and Merkulov 1985)]: V
κλ ∗ ∗ µν

κλ κτ τλ = −Vµν κλ − δµν Vστ στ + 2δµν Vστ σλ + 2δµν Vστ σκ .


In fact, these different applications of asterisks simply point out non-coinciding but equivalent ways to deal with the dual conjugation. For example, one ∗ may write equally ∗F as (1/2)Fµν ∗ dxµν ≡ (1/2)F µν dxµν ; and it is clear ∗ that F = (1/2)Fµν dxµν = −(1/2)F µν ∗ dxµν . Let us consider now the tensor used in (1.20) without leaving out important details. This tensor is skew in its first pairs of indices as well as in their last pair (Vαβγδ = V[αβ][γδ] , but the relationship between the pairs of indices is not fixed. Thus the tensor can be considered as a double 2-form, V = Vαβγδ dxαβ ⊗ dxγδ . The left-hand side in (1.20) can then be written as Vαβ γδ ∗ dxαβ ⊗ ∗∂γδ (we consider this as a natural extension of the Hodge star concept, though with the basis ∂ one has to deal with contravariant parts of objects; however, the rules introduced for the usual Cartan forms, can be applied without contradictions in this case too). In order not to formally contradict to the general amenity regulations in the geometry, one may, of course, write Vαβ γδ ∗ dxαβ ⊗ ∗dxγδ , as this was 6

done in (1.14). Then this expression will be equal to  γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν  +δκ δλ δα δβ − δκ δλ δβ δα + δκ δβ δλ δα − δκ δβ δα δλ   +δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν − δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν + δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν − δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν   κ α λ β κ α β λ λ κ α β λ κ β α  γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν 1 αβ  +δλ δα δκ δβ − δλ δα δβ δκ + δλ δβ δα δκ − δλ δβ δκ δα − V γδ µ ν µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ γ δ  +δα δλ δβ δκ − δα δλ δκ δβ + δα δκ δλ δβ − δα δκ δβ δλ 4   γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν   +δα δβ δκ δλ − δα δβ δλ δκ + δβ δα δλ δκ − δβ δα δκ δλ   γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν +δβ δκ δα δλ − δβ δκ δλ δα + δβ δλ δκ δα − δβ δλ δα δκ

              

dxκλ ⊗ dxµν .

(1.21) It is not too convenient to write down all 24 terms appearing as the preliminary result of the multiplications in (1.21). Therefore let us look for simplifications surely awaiting for our attention somewhere around the corner. The first of these simplifications are quite impatient, they fill the first two adjacent places in the first and in the second lines, and they all four contribute equally, yielding the term −V µν κλ dxκλ ⊗ dxµν (the denominator 4 just disappeared). Here you also see that the first two indices in V became its last pair of indices, and vice versa, please take into account the crucial in this sense basis factor dxκλ ⊗ dxµν . Well, we now have to deal with the remaining 20 terms. Let it be a (not too bad) exercise since there already is enough room for the comparison, see (1.20) vis. (1.21). In electrodynamics [cf. (Wheeler 1962, Israel 1970, Mitskievich and Merkulov 1985)] we consider here two particular cases to which the crafty identities lead; these cases together make it possible (and easy) to explicitly represent any invariant built of the electromagnetic field tensor F as a ∗ function of only two invariants, I1 = Fµν F µν and I2 = F µν F µν (the second is, of course, only a pseudo-invariant, i.e., an axial scalar). First, we take Vαβγδ = Fαβ Fγδ whose substitution into (1.20) with one additional contraction yields 1 λ ∗ Fµν F λν − F µν F λν = δµ Fστ F στ . (1.22) ∗ 2 ∗ Another choice of Vαβγδ = Fαβ F γδ , also with a contraction, leads to 1 λ ∗ ∗ F µν F λν = δµ F στ F στ . 4 (1.23)

An example of application of these identities is worth being given: taking the (pseudo-)invariant Fµν F λν Fλξ F ξµ and applying (1.23) to two interior factors, ∗ ν one directly comes to Fµν 1 δξ I2 F ξµ = − 1 I1 I2 . By the way, all invariants 4 4 7

and pseudo-invariants containing odd total number of usual and dually conjugated F s, identically vanish. See the next two pages:




∗ µν
κλ ∗

 γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν  +δκ δλ δα δβ − δκ δλ δβ δα +δκ δβ δλ δα − δκ δβ δα δλ   +δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν − δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν +δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν − δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν   κ α κ α β α κ α κ β λ   +δ γ δ δ δβ δ ν − δ γ δ δ δλ δ ν + λ γ δ δ β µ δ ν − λ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν µ µ δλ β δα κ δλ β κ α ∗ λ α β κ λ α κ β −4V κλ µν = V αβ γδ γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν ∗  +δα δλ δβ δκ − δα δλ δκ δβ +δα δκ δλ δβ − δα δκ δβ δλ    +δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν − δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν + δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν − δ γ δ δ δ µ δ ν  α β κ λ α β λ κ β α λ κ β α κ λ   γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν γ δ µ ν +δβ δκ δα δλ − δβ δκ δλ δα + δβ δλ δκ δα − δβ δλ δα δκ

              


µ ν µ µ ν µ ν ν = 4V µν κλ +2V στ στ (δκ δλ − δλ δκ )+4V σν σκ δλ − 4V σµ σκ δλ −4V σν σλ δκ +4V σµ σλ δκ

(we have already used the symmetry properties V µν κλ = V [µν] [κλ] for mutual reduction of similar terms). Taking now into account that, for example, ∗ ν V σν σκ ≡ V στ σκ δτ , we combine some pairs of terms coming to −4V κλ µν = ∗
µ ν µ ν µ ν µ ν µ ν µ ν = 4V µν κλ +2V στ στ (δκ δλ − δλ δκ )+4V στ σκ (δλ δτ − δτ δλ )−4V στ σλ (δκ δτ − δτ δκ ) . µ ν µν µ ν Application of the notation δκ δλ − δλ δκ = 2δκλ with a division by (−4) yields µν µν µν ∗ V κλ µν = −V µνκλ −V στστ δκλ −2V στσκ δλτ + 2V στσλ δκτ . ∗

Finally, let us rewrite the just obtained identity without using colours and interchanging the next to last term and the last one:
µν µν µν ∗ V κλ µν = −V µνκλ − V στστ δκλ + 2V στσλ δκτ − 2V στσκ δλτ . ∗


It is obvious that both left- and right-hand sides of this identity are equally skew-symmetric in the free indices κ, λ as well as in µ, ν. Contraction of the identity (1) in ν and λ yields
µν µν µν ∗ V κν µν = −V µνκν − V στστ δκν + 2V στσν δκτ − 2V στσκ δντ . ∗


Though this is a special restricted case following from (1), we shall now see its importance, in particular for electrodynamics. To this end we substitute in (2) V µνκλ = F µν Fκλ : 1 µ ∗ F µν Fκν − F κν F µν = I1 δκ ∗ 2 9 (1.26)

where I1 = Fαβ F αβ is the electromagnetic first invariant. Another substitu∗ tion, V µνκλ = F µν F κλ , leads to 1 µ ∗ Fκν F µν = F µν F κν = I2 δκ ∗ 4 (1.27)

∗ where the second (pseudo-) invariant is I2 = F στ F στ . An example of application of the identities (3) and (4) is the straightforward determination of any invariant being an arbitrary even power of F and/or ∗F (in the case of odd number of factors such a product invariant identically vanishes; in many cases, this is obvious without application of the above identities). I gratefully acknowledge the detection of my error in three last coefficients in formula (1.20) in my file on Topics of Riemannian Geometry by students of Licenciatura on September 11, 2008.


For the Levi-Civit` axial tensor one has a
κλ ∗ E κλ µν ≡ E κλ µν = −2δµν , ∗


for the Riemann–Christoffel curvature tensor,
κλ ∗ R αβ κλ = −Rαβ κλ + Rδαβ − 4R[α δβ] , ∗ [κ λ]


and for the Weyl conformal curvature tensor,
∗ C αβ γδ ≡ Cαβ γδ . ∗


By the way, a repeated application of the crafty identities to a construction quadratic in the curvature tensor (with subsequent contractions, so that only two indices remain free ones), leads to the well known Lanczos identities,
1 Rαβγ µ Rαβγν − 4 Rαβγδ Rαβγδ g µν − 2Rµαβν Rαβ + Rαβ Rαβ g µν −

1 µ −Rα Rαν + R Rµν − 4 R2 g µν = 0

[see our derivation of these identities (Mitskievich 1969) which differs radically from that by Lanczos (1938) who used less straightforward integral relations]. Note that the invariant Rαβγδ R αβ γδ is known as the Bach–Lanczos ∗ ∗ invariant, or the generalized Gauss–Bonnet invariant;4 like the electromagnetic invariant Fαβ F αβ , it represents (in a four-dimensional world) a pure ∗ divergence, so that it does not contribute to the field equations in four dimensions. Cf. also DeWitt (1965).


Differentiations in Riemannian Geometry

There are two closely related differentiation operators using the important concept of connection in Riemannian geometry: the more modern nabla operator with which we begin this section, and the comparatively older ;-operator to be encountered in more traditional treatment of the Riemannian geometry. Finally, the Lie derivative does not use the concept of connection (though it can be written with the help of covariant derivatives). But the Lie derivative serves rather for more general description of covariant derivatives than the

The first of Lagrangians of the Lovelock (1971) series reduces to it.


latter ones are needed for its conceptual introduction. From these differential operators one easily can pass to many variants of the crucially important concept of Riemannian geometry, that of different kinds of transports in spaces endowed with curvature. This last way of treating curved manifolds is naturally related to one of the central object both of geometry and of physics in curved manifolds, the geodesic equation.


The Nabla Operator

The covariant differentiation axioms [see e.g. Ryan and Shepley (1975)] are: (1) v T has the same tensor rank and valence properties as T , v being always a vector. (2) v is a linear operation:
v (T

+ U) = =a

vT uT


v U, v T.

au+bv T


(3) The Leibniz property5 holds (including the contraction operation in the Riemannian geometry). (4) Action of on a function6 is v f = vf , where v = v α ∂α ≡ v (α) X(α) . (5) Metricity property: v g = 0 (for a further generalization of the geometry, the non-metricity tensor appears on the right-hand side). (6) Zero torsion axiom:


= [u, v] + T, T = 0.

(in a generalization of the geometry, the torsion tensor7 T becomes different from zero). These axioms8 are most simply realized when the connection coefficients are introduced,
X(α) X(β)

= Γ(β)(α) X(γ) ;


X(α) θ


= −Γ(β)(α) θ(β)



Distributive property when product expressions are differentiated. A “scalar”; the concept of scalar is somewhat different for the covariant differentiation denoted by a semicolon; see more in the footnote 9. 7 Like the curvature operator below, the torsion T (if = 0) here also describes a tensor, now of the rank three, by the rule: X(µ) X(ν) − X(ν) X(µ) − X(µ) , X(ν) = T (λ) (µ)(ν) X(λ) [cf. (3.2)]. Then, of course, the connection coefficients following from (2.1), should be modified. 8 There could be also added the seventh (in some sense) “axiom”: [ u , v ] = [u,v] + R(u, v) [cf. the definition (3.1)], with R = 0, as an alternative to T = 0. Then, of course,


(only one of these two relations is independent). When the structure coefficients of a basis are introduced with help of [X(α) , X(β) ] = C(α)(β) X(γ) , C(α)(β) = Γ(β)(α) − Γ(α)(β)
(γ) (γ) (γ) (γ)


γ (for a holonomic, or coordinated basis, Cαβ = 0; as usually, we write in individual parentheses only the tetrad and not coordinated basis indices), the general solution satisfying the whole set of axioms, from 1 to 6, is  (γ) 1 Γ(α)(β) = 2 g (γ)(δ) X(β) g(α)(δ) + X(α) g(β)(δ) − X(δ) g(α)(β)   (2.3)  (γ) (δ) (δ)  1 ( )(γ) ( )(γ) + C( )(α) g(β)(δ) g . + 2 C(β)(α) + C( )(β) g(α)(δ) g

We give here the hint for deduction of (2.3): first, to look at the first square brackets and represent them as X(β) g(α)(δ) + X(α) g(β)(δ) − X(δ) g(α)(β) = X(β) X(α) · X(δ) + X(α) X(β) · X(δ) − X(δ) X(α) · X(β) ; then to apply nabla-differentiation and the definition of structure coefficients (2.2). Finally, (γ) (γ) (γ) (γ) to do a recombination of the expression Γ(α)(β) +Γ(β)(α) into 2Γ(α)(β) +Γ(β)(α) − Γ(α)(β) , the last two terms forming the structure coefficient C(β)(α) . Then one has to rewrite the result already into the form of (2.3), and all is done. In a coordinated basis (where the basis vectors and covectors are usually written as ∂α and dxα ), the connection coefficients reduce to the Christoffel symbols (which are written without parentheses before and after each index, and which obviously are symmetric in the two lower indices): 1 Γγ = g γδ (gαδ,β + gδβ,α − gαβ,δ ) . αβ 2 (2.4)
(γ) (γ)

Orthonormal bases and those of Newman–Penrose [see Penrose and Rindler (1984a, 1984b)] are special cases of bases whose vectors have constant scalar products (i.e., the corresponding tetrad components of the metric are constant). For such bases the connection coefficients are skew in the upper and the first lower indices; they are sometimes called Ricci rotation coefficients. Thus, in a coordinated basis, the differentiation of A = Aα yields
∂γ A

= (∂γ Aα )dxα + Aα

∂γ dx


= Aα,γ − Aβ Γβ dxα =: Aα;γ dxα , (2.5) γα

the theory changes drastically, but in literature one can find an assertion that in this case the former gravitational effects become those of the torsion. The author is not ready to swear that this is completely true, and the following exposition strictly belongs to the Riemannian geometry.


and for V = V α ∂α ,
∂γ V

= V α ,γ + V β Γα ∂α =: V α ;γ ∂α , γβ


in accordance with the (old) traditional notations for the ;-covariant derivative. From these definitions it is easy to see that the ;-covariant derivatives of vectors, Aα;γ and V α ;γ , are components of rank 2 tensors. In general the ;-covariant derivatives of rank r tensors also are (in the sense of components) tensors of the rank r + 1 (cf. the axiom 1 of the -covariant derivative). Let us revisit the definition of connection coefficients, using now the coorα dinated basis. Then dxα = δβ dxβ ; it is probably better to highlight more the sense of the index α in this expression (that it is not a component number of a vector, but the number of a covector in a coordinated basis), entering it α into a circle (the parentheses already have other meanings): dx α = δβ dxβ . Then α α α α δβ;γ = δβ,γ − Γσ δσ = −Γγβ , γβ since the Kronecker delta is a set of constants, and the encircled index does not pertain to the coordinated components (now it has more in common with a tetrad component number, but for a non-orthonormal tetrad). Thus we come to an equivalent of (2.1) in a coordinated basis, ∂γ dxα = −Γα dxβ . γβ The subindex in ∂ α = δ β ∂β can be treated similarly, only the sign will be α changed to the inverse one.


;-covariant Differentiation

Thus, covariant differentiation can also be denoted by a semicolon (;) before the differentiation index (especially, in the elder literature9 ). Then, according to the covariant differentiation axioms (in particular, the axiom 1, however paradoxical this may appear), it leads to an increase by unity of the valence of the corresponding tensor. As Trautman (1956, 1957) remarked, such a covariant derivative can be defined as Ta;α := Ta,α + Ta |τ Γσα σ τ


In the old-fashioned coordinated component notations, tensor components are usually treated as synonyms of the corresponding tensors, so it is then quite awkward to consider them as a set of scalars, but in the modern abstract (coordinate-free) notations, tensor — and connection — components are dealt with just as a set of scalar functions. Here we use a fairly innocuous mixture of both styles.


where the coefficients Ta |τ determine the behavior of the quantity Ta (which σ could be not merely a tensor, but also a tensor density or some more general object) under infinitesimal transformations of coordinates, being a dimensionless infinitesimal scalar constant: x µ = xµ + ξ µ (x), δTa := Ta (x ) − Ta (x) = Ta |τ ξ σ ,τ , σ i.e. Ta |τ = σ property


∂δTa /∂(ξ σ ,τ ). It is clear that the coefficients Ta |τ possess a σ (Sa Tb )|τ = Sa |τ Tb + Sa Tb |τ σ σ σ (2.9)

which is closely related to the Leibniz property of differentiation. The covariant (in the sense of u ) differentiation axioms are readily reformulated in terms of ;-differentiation; in particular, the axiom 5 takes the form gαβ;γ = 0 or, equivalently, Eκλµν;γ = 0 (2.10)

which (in each of these two forms) immediately yields the definition (2.4) of Γγ . αβ We shall now show in general that after the ;-differentiation the resulting object has property of a tensor of the same valences as those of the tensor before the differentiation, plus one additional covariant valence. To this end we shall use collective indices, but in another sense than in the Cartan formalism (now, without antisymmetrization). Thus the true analogue of the oversimplified expressions (2.5) and (2.6) reads

Ta b dxa ⊗ ∂b = Ta b ;γ (dxa ⊗ ∂b ) .


Similarly, a chain of equations follows: ∂xβ b Ta ;β (x) (dxa ⊗ ∂b ) . ∂x γ (2.12) Now note that the successive contraction of the basis objects with collective indices yields
∂γ Ta b

(x ) (dx a ⊗ ∂b ) = Ta


a ;γ (x ) (dx ⊗ ∂b ) =

a l (dx a ⊗ ∂b ) · ∂k ⊗ dx l = δk δb , (dxa ⊗ ∂b ) · ∂k ⊗ dx l =

∂xa ∂x l , (2.13) ∂x k ∂xb

so that finally ∂xβ ∂xa ∂x l b Ta ;β (x). (2.14) ∂x γ ∂x k ∂xb This is precisely the transformation law we have spoken about above. Tk ;γ (x ) =



The Lie Derivative

The definition of covariant derivative (2.7) may be deduced from the concept of Lie derivative, £ξ Ta := Ta,α ξ α − Ta |τ ξ σ ,τ ≡ Ta;α ξ α − Ta |τ ξ σ ;τ , σ σ which can be written for objects of the most general nature as £ξ Ta :=


(Ta (x) − Ta (x))


[cf. Yano (1955)].10 Due to the property (2.9), the definition (2.15) of the Lie derivative under an infinitesimal transformation yields the Leibniz property. However, if we consider the finite-difference ‘Lie derivative’ (2.16) when it is not subjected to an infinitesimal transport (the parameter is now finite, so that we have to introduce instead of £ a new notation, say, £ ), then a generalized Leibniz property has to be introduced, £ ξ (Sa Tb ) = − £ ξ Sa £ ξ Tb + £ ξ Sa Tb + Sa £ ξ Tb .

Seemingly, it is quite different from the former one (see the first right-hand side term). However this situation is typical for finite differences, automatically changing to the usual Leibniz property when one goes to the infinitesimal case (in the lower order of ), and only the last two right-hand side terms survive.
The quantity Ta (x) which will appear also in the proof of Noether’s theorem, describes the change of dependence of the components Ta due to the transformation of coordinates from xµ to x µ . This may seem to be somewhat artificial, so we give here an explanation for it in a form of parable. Consider a region of space-time filled with integral curves of the vector field ξ µ (x) and two points, P and P , belonging to the same curve, such that the coordinates of P in the system {x } are numerically equal to those of P in {x}: x µ |P = xµ |P . This corresponds to the situation when at both points there are independent observers having exactly the same mentality so that they ascribe to their respective positions in space-time the same numerical characteristics thus using these two coordinate systems, {x} and {x }, respectively. Let these observers have all necessary devices for measurement and reproduction of the field Ta at their respective points. Moreover, suppose that each of them can communicate with the other telepathically. Then the information about measurement of Ta made by the observer at P , sent instantaneously to the observer at P and reproduced by him, is related to the independent measurement of Ta by this latter observer directly through the Lie derivative (2.16).


It is important that both objects in the parentheses in (2.16), have the same argument (non-primed one). This leads to a possibility to extend the operation Ta;α even to quantities of the type of a connection. Concerning the transformations of coordinates, we usually consider only those which are reducible to infinitesimal ones (i.e., we speak about the connected component of the identity transformation). In this case it is always possible to recover finite transformations through integration of the infinitesimal ones, but of course not such as inversions. Thus we may write x µ = xµ + ξ µ , ξ µ = ξ µ (x), (2.17)

being an infinitesimal constant, and ξ an arbitrary differentiable vector field (note that a vector field is inextricably related to the general concept of congruence which is central in the definition of the Lie derivative). The standard transformation coefficients of tensor components by virtue of infinitesimality read ∂xµ ∂x µ µ µ µ = δν + ξ µ ,ν , (2.18) ν = δν − ξ ,ν , ν ∂x ∂x (up to the first order of magnitude terms). In this sense Γλ = Rλ (µν)α . µν;α (2.19)

The Lie derivative (2.15) reduces to the gradient projected on ξ when it is applied to a scalar function. Since the set of coordinates xµ is a collection of four scalar functions, this means that £ξ x µ = ξ µ (2.20)

for any vector field ξ. Concerning the Lie derivative, it is worth also mentioning the relations £ξ gµν = ξµ;ν + ξν;µ , £ξ Γλ = ξ λ ;µ;ν − ξ κ Rλ µνκ ≡ ξ λ (;µ;ν) − ξ κ Rλ (µν)κ . (2.21) µν A vector field satisfying the equation ξµ;ν + ξν;µ = 0, (2.22)

is called the Killing field. Its existence imposes certain limitations on the geometry, — existence of an isometry: £ξ gµν = 0 [see (Yano 1955, Eisenhart 1933, Ryan and Shepley 1975)]. The Lie derivative plays an important role in the monad formalism, as we shall see below; this is why a version of this formalism well adapted to description of the canonical structure of the field theory, is called the “Lie-monad formalism” [see (Mitskievich and Nesterov 1981, Mitskievich, Yefremov and Nesterov 1985)]. 17


The Curvature in Riemannian Geometry

It is convenient to define the concept of curvature in the Riemannian geometry by introducing the curvature operator [see e.g. (Ryan and Shepley 1975)], R(u, v) := u v − v u − [u,v] . (3.1) This operator has the following five properties: 1) It is skew in u and v. 2) It annihilates the metric, R(u, v) g = 0. 3) It annihilates any scalar function, R(u, v) f = 0 (e.g., R(u, v) Γα = 0). βγ 4) This is a linear operator (cf. the axiom 2 of the covariant differentiation). 5) The Leibniz property holds for it (this fact is remarkable since the curvature operator involves the second, not first order differentiation). The curvature tensor components (which are scalars from the point of view of the -differentiation) are determined as R(κ) (λ)(µ)(ν) := θ(κ) · R(X(µ) , X(ν) )X(λ) . (3.2)

These are the coefficients (components) of decomposition of the curvature tensor with respect to the corresponding basis, and in the general case they are (α) (α) ( ) (α) R(α) (β)(γ)(δ) = X(γ) Γ(β)(δ) − X(δ) Γ(β)(γ) + Γ(β)(δ) Γ( )(γ) (3.3) ( ) (α) ( ) (α) −Γ(β)(γ) Γ( )(δ) − C(γ)(δ) Γ(β)( ) . It is worth remembering that some authors use a definition of curvature with the opposite sign, e.g. Penrose and Rindler (1984a,b) and Yano (1955) [see also a table in (Misner, Thorne and Wheeler 1973)]. The structure of the curvature operator yields a simple property, Rκ λµν wλ = wκ ;ν;µ − wκ ;µ;ν . It is also easy to show that the standard algebraic identities hold, Rκλµν = R[κλ][µν] = Rµνκλ , (3.5) Rκ[λµν] = 0, or equivalently, R
νλ ∗ µν



(this last identity bears the name of Ricci, but sometimes it is called “algebraic Bianchi identity”). Important role is also played by the differential 18

Bianchi identity, Rκλ[µν;ξ] = 0, equivalently, R αβ κλ;β = 0. ∗ (3.6)

The Ricci curvature tensor we define as Rµν ≡ Rνµ := Rλ µνλ , cf. Eisenhart (1926, 1933), and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (1973). There are α also introduced the scalar curvature, R := Rα , the Einstein tensor Gµν = Rµν − (1/2)gµν R forming the left-hand side of Einstein’s equations, and the Weyl conformal curvature tensor C, 1 Cκλµν := Rκλµν + gκ[µ Rν]λ + gλ[ν Rµ]κ − Rgκ[µ gν]λ 3 (3.7)

(here written in the four-dimensional spacetime manifold). The latter (taken with one contravariant index, and in a coordinated basis), does not feel a multiplication of the metric tensor by an arbitrary good function, so it is conformally invariant. Remember that the Weyl tensor works only for spacetime dimensionality D ≥ 4. When D = 2, Gµν ≡ 0, and for D = 3 the Cotton tensor (Cotton 1899) is used when the conformal correspondence of space-times and the classification ` la Petrov are considered, see (Garcia et a al. 2004).


Cartan’s structure equations

In the formalism of Cartan’s exterior differential forms, see (Israel 1970, Ryan and Shepley 1975), the operation of exterior differentiation is introduced, d := θ(α)
X(α) ∧

≡ dxα

∂α ∧,


where ∧ is the discussed above wedge product (the operation of exterior multiplication), so that dd ≡ 0. The operation d has its most simple representation in a coordinated basis (since the Christoffel symbols are symmetric in their two lower indices). It is however especially convenient to work in an orthonormalized or Newman–Penrose basis when the connection 1-forms ω (α) (β) := Γ(β)(γ) θ(γ)


are skew-symmetric (ω (α) (β) = −ω(β) (α) ). In the general case they are found as a solution of the system of Cartan’s first structure equations, dθ(α) = −ω (α) (β) ∧ θ(β) , 19 (3.10)

and relations for differential of the tetrad metric components,11 dg(α)(β) = ω(α)(β) + ω(β)(α) . (3.11)

Then one has just 24 + 40 equations for determining all the 64 components of the connection coefficients, so that the solution of this set of equations should be unique. It is easy to accustom to find the specific solutions without performing tedious formal calculations; then the work takes surprisingly short time. Since reference frame characteristics (vectors of acceleration and rotation, and rate-of-strain tensor) below will turn out to be a kind of connection coefficients, this approach allows to calculate promptly also these physical characteristics, though for the rate-of-strain tensor the computation will be rather specific. In their turn, the curvature tensor components are also computed easily and promptly, if one applies Cartan’s second structure equations, Ω(α) (β) = dω(α)(β) + ω (α) (γ) ∧ ω (γ) (β) . (3.12)

Here the calculations are much more straightforward than for the connection 1-forms, and they take less time. It remains only to read out expressions for the curvature components according to the definition 1 Ω(α) (β) := R(α) (β)(γ)(δ) θ(γ) ∧ θ(δ) 2 (3.13)

being in conformity with the curvature operator properties via (3.12). The Ricci and Bianchi identities read in the language of Cartan’s forms as Ω(α) (β) ∧ θ(β) = 0 and dΩ(α) (β) = Ω(α) (γ) ∧ ω (γ) (β) − ω (α) (γ) ∧ Ω(γ) (β) (3.15) respectively. The detailed deduction of the second Cartan structure equation (3.12) from the definitions of curvature (3.3) and the curvature 2-form (3.13) can be done as follows. When the (skew) symmetry properties are taken into
For deduction of these relations consider the following calculations: dg(α)(β) = d(X(α) · X(β) ) = θ(µ) X(µ) (X(α) ·X(β) ) = ω (γ) (α) (X(γ) ·X(β) )+ω (γ) (β) (X(α) ·X(γ) ) = ω (γ) (α) g(γ)(β) + ω (γ) (β) g(α)(γ) = ω(β)(α) + ω(α)(β) .



account, as well as the definition of d (3.8), we immediately rewrite Ω(α) (β) as dΓ(β)(δ) ∧θ(δ) +ω (α) ( ) ∧ω ( ) (β) +Γ(β)( ) θ(γ) ∧ω ( ) (γ) where we also used the definition of 1-form of connection (3.9) (and we shall use it below). Then the (α) next identical rewriting yields dω (α) (β) + Γ(β)(δ) ω (δ) ( ) ∧ θ( ) + ω (α) ( ) ∧ ω ( ) (β) + Γ(β)( ) θ(γ) ∧ ω ( ) (γ) where both terms with Γ identically cancel, and we finally come to (3.12).
(α) (α) (α)


Einstein’s field equations

From the Bianchi identities (3.6), Rκλµν;ξ + Rκλνξ;µ + Rκλξµ;ν = 0, it follows after two contractions (in κ and ξ and then with multiplication by g λµ ) that 1 κ κ Rν − Rδν 2 = 0.


1 µ µ The tensor Gµ := Rν − 2 Rδν whose covariant divergence thus identically ν vanishes, is called Einstein’s conservative tensor. The variational principle applied to the first term (simply proportional to the scalar curvature R) in the action integral for Einstein’s field, directly yields this tensor as the lefthand side of equations; the same principle yields, via the term interpreted as Lagrangian density of the physical field(s) to be used as source(s) of the gravitational field, the energy-momentum tensor of the physical field(s) [the other path to deduce these both tensors is to use the Noether theorem, see, e.g., Mitskievich (2006)]. All these variation results, naturally, appear with √ the corresponding coefficients including, in particular, −g. Historically, the conservative tensor was first proposed by Einstein to be equated with the energy-momentum tensor (multiplied by a certain coefficient) to intuitively come to the equations of gravitational field.


Parallel Transport and it Analogues

Let us give here a scheme of definition of transports. Denote first as δT v := v|Q − v|P →Q the change of a vector (or of some other object) under its transport between points P and Q [see (Mitskievich, Yefremov and Nesterov 1985)]. Then for the parallel transport δP v = dλ 21


and for the Fermi–Walker transport [cf. Synge (1960)] δFW v = dλ

+ η[(v ·

u u)u

− (v · u)

u u]






where uα = dxα /dλ is the tangent vector to the transport curve (for the Fermi–Walker transport, it is essential to choose canonical parameter along the transport curve in such a way that the norm u·u = η −1 would be constant and non-zero — so the curve itself should be non-null for the Fermi–Walker transport). Using the definitions (2.7), it is easy to generalize the transport relations to arbitrary tensors or tensor densities; so for the Fermi–Walker transport δFW Ta = Ta;α uα + ηTa |τ (uτ ;α uσ − uτ uσ ;α )uα . (3.19) σ dλ From (3.18), a definition of the Fermi–Walker connection seems to be directly obtainable, together with the corresponding covariant FW differentiation operation which should lead also to the FW-curvature [cf. (Mitskievich, Yefremov and Nesterov 1985)]: RFW (w, v) :=








[u,v] .


The reader may find that in this generalization a difficulty arises: the “derivative” FW does not possess the linearity property. This trouble is however u readily removable if we begin with introduction of another type of derivative, namely τ (see below) which possesses all necessary properties of a covariant u derivative.


The Geodesic Equation

We give here the (equivalent to each other) forms of the geodesic equation (describing parallel transport of a vector along itself) for a canonical (affine) parameter (then absolute value of the vector does not suffer changes):  u u = 0,         u ∧ ∗du = 0,  (3.21) β γ  d2 xα + Γα dx dx = 0,   βγ dλ dλ dλ2       β σ dxτ d dx 1 dx (gαβ dλ ) = 2 gστ,α dλ dλ . dλ 22

A geodesic may be, of course, also null (lightlike), but if it is time-like, one has dλ = ds. If a non-canonical parameter is used, an extra term proportional to u should be added in the equations (3.21), with a coefficient being some function of the (non-canonical) parameter. Below we shall make use of the just mentioned generalization of the FWderivative (3.18) along a time-like congruence with a tangent vector field τ normalized by unity (the monad). It is convenient to denote such a derivative as τ , u τ µ ν ν α a (3.22) u T + Ta |ν (τµ;α τ − τµ τ ;α ) u B , uT = where B a is the (coordinated) basis of T : T = Ta B a . Then definition (3.22) can be also written as
[τ ] Ta;µ = Ta;µ + Ta |ρ (τ σ τρ;µ − τ σ ;µ τρ ). σ


u u.



This τ -derivative acts as the usual u upon any scalar function f , and it annuls the vector τ , the metric tensor g, and the construction b = g − τ ⊗ τ (the three-metric or the projector in the monad formalism):
τ uf

= uf,

τ uτ


τ ug


τ ub



(action of a τ -derivative on a tensor is understood in the sense of (3.22); u is considered as a partial differentiation operator in uf ). The corresponding τ -curvature operator is denoted as Rτ (w, v) [see (Mitskievich, Yefremov and Nesterov 1985)].


The Laplacian and De Rhamian Operators

Alongside with exterior differentiation d which increases the degree of a form by unity, in Cartan’s formalism another differential operation is also used which diminishes this degree by unity, δ := − ∗ d ∗ . In fact this is the divergence operation, δ(αµh dxµh ) = pαµh ;µ dxh , p = #h + 1, (3.26) (3.25)

which does not however fulfil the Leibniz property: when applied to a product, e.g., of a function and a 1-form, f a, it results in δ(f a) = f δa − ∗(df ∧ ∗a), 23

while it acts on a function (0-form) simply annihilating it, δf ≡ 0. One might call this a generalized Leibniz property. Of course, similarly to the identity dd ≡ 0, there holds also the identity δδ ≡ 0. A combination of both operations gives the de Rham operator (de-Rhamian),12 := dδ + δd ≡ (d + δ)2 (3.27)

(remember divergence of a gradient in Euclidean geometry). A form annihilated by the de-Rhamian, is called harmonic form (remember harmonic functions and the Laplace operator). In contrast to δ, the de-Rhamian acts non-trivially on 0-forms, and in contrast to the exterior differential d, it acts non-trivially on 4-forms too (also in the four-dimensional world). The following classification elements of forms are also used: an exact form is that which is an exterior derivative of another form; a closed form is that whose exterior differential vanishes (an exact form is always closed, though the converse is in general not true); a co-exact form is a result of action by δ on some form of a higher (by unity) degree; a co-closed form is itself identically annihilated by δ. In (topologically) simplest cases it is possible to split an arbitrary form into sum of a harmonic, exact, and co-exact forms [see Eguchi, Gilkey and Hanson (1980), Mitskievich, Yefremov and Nesterov (1985)]. For an arbitrary form α, α = αa;µ ;µ dxa − pRσ τ µ ν αµh |τ dxνh , #a = p. σ (3.28)

The number of individual indices entering the collective index a of the components of the form α, may be any from 0 to 4, while the quantity αa |τ is σ determined by (2.8). The expression (3.28) can be reduced identically to
σ α = (p!)−1 [αµνh;λ ;λ + pRµ ασνh +

p(p − 1) στ R µν αστ h ]dxµνh 2


where a = µνh, #a = 2 + #h = p, and p may be equal also to zero. We compare here explicitly the results of action of de-Rhamiam on forms of all degrees in a four-dimensional world: f: A = Aα dxα :

f = f,µ ;µ ,
σ A = (Aα;µ ;µ + Rα Aσ )dxα ,

(3.30) (3.31)

The same symbol,

, also denotes the usual Laplacian.


1 1 σ (3.32) F = Fαβ dxαβ : F = (Fαβ;µ ;µ + 2Rα Fσβ + Rστ αβ Fστ )dxαβ , 2 2 1 1 σ T = 3! Tαβγ dxαβγ : T = 3! (Tαβγ;µ ;µ + 3Rα Tσβγ + 3Rστ αβ Tστ γ )dxαβγ
σ ˜ ˜α;µ = (A;µ + Rα Aσ ) ∗ dxα ,

(3.33) 1 1 ˜;µ V = Vαβγδ dxαβγδ : V = Vαβγδ;µ ;µ dxαβγδ = f;µ ∗ 1. (3.34) 4! 4! From the last two expressions it is clear that there exists a symmetry with respect to an exchange of a basis form to its dual conjugate with a simultaneous dual conjugation of components of the form [compare (3.30) and (3.34), (3.31) and (3.33)]. Here we made use of obvious definitions 1 1 ˜ ˜ Aδ = − Tαβγ E αβγδ , f = − Vαβγδ E αβγδ , 3! 4! alongside with the easily checkable identity,
σ (2Rα Eσβγδ + 3Rστ αβ Eστ γδ )E αβγδ ≡ 0.

Choquet-Bruhat, Y., DeWitt-Morette, C., and Dillard-Bleick, M. (1982) Analysis, Manifolds, and Physics (Amsterdam: North-Holland). Cotton, E. (1899) Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse II 1, 385. DeWitt, B.S. (1965) Dynamical Theory of Groups and Fields (New York: Gordon and Breach). Eguchi, T., Gilkey, P.B., and Hanson, A.J. (1980) Phys. Reports 66, 213. Eisenhart, L.P. (1926) Riemannian Geometry (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press). Eisenhart, L.P. (1933) Continuous Groups of Transformations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press). Eisenhart, L.P. (1972) Non-Riemannian Geometry (Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society). 25

Garc´ A.A., Hehl, F.W., Heinicke, Ch., and Mac´ A. (2004) Class. ıa, ıas, Quantum Grav. 21, 1099. Islam, J.N. (1985) Rotating fields in general relativity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Israel, W. (1970) Commun. Dublin Inst. Adv. Studies A 19, 1. Lanczos, C. (1938) Ann. Math. 39, 842. Lanczos, C. (1962) Revs. Mod. Phys. 34, 379. Lovelock, D. (1971) J. Math. Phys. 12, 498. Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., and Wheeler, J.A. (1973) Gravitation (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman). Mitskievich, N.V. (1969) Physical Fields in General Relativity (Moscow: Nauka). In Russian. Mitskievich, N. (2006) Relativistic Physics in Arbitrary Reference Frames (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.). Mitskievich, N.V., and Merkulov, S.A. (1985) Tensor Calculus in Field Theory (Moscow: Peoples’ Friendship University Press). In Russian. Mitskievich, N.V., and Nesterov, A.I. ((1981) Exper. Techn. der Physik 29, 333. Mitskievich, N.V., Yefremov, A.P., and Nesterov, A.I. (1985). Dynamics of Fields in General Relativity (Moscow: Energoatomizdat) In Russian. Penrose, R., and Rindler, W. (1984a) Spinors and Space-Time. Vol. 1. Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Penrose, R., and Rindler, W. (1984b) Spinors and Space-Time. Vol. 2. Spinor and Twistor Methods in Space-Time Geometry. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Ryan, M.P., and Shepley, L.C. (1975) Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press). 26

Sachs, R.K., and Wu, H. (1977) General Relativity for Mathematicians (New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer). Schmutzer, E. (1989) Grundlagen der Theoretischen Physik (Mannheim, Wien, Z¨rich: BI-Wissenschaftsverlag), Teile 1 & 2. u Schmutzer, E. (2004) Projektive Einheitliche Feldtheorie mit Anwendungen in Kosmologie und Astrophysik (Frankfurt am Main: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Harry Deutsch GmbH). Mit einem Anhang von A.K. Gorbatsievich. Schouten, I.A., and Struik, D.J.(1935) Einf¨hrung in die neueren Methu oden der Differentialgeometrie. Vol. 1 (Gronongen: Noordhoff). Schouten, I.A., and Struik, D.J. (1938) Einf¨hrung in die neueren u Methoden der Differentialgeometrie. Vol. 2 (Gronongen: Noordhoff). Schutz, B.F. (1980) Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Synge, J.L. (1960) Relativity: The General Theory (Amsterdam: NorthHolland). Synge, J.L. (1965) Relativity: The Special Theory (Amsterdam: NorthHolland). Trautman, A.(1956) Bulletin de l’Acad´mie Polonaise des Sciences, e S´rie de sciences math., astr. et phys. IV, 665 & 671. e Trautman, A. (1957) Bulletin de l’Acad´mie Polonaise des Sciences, e S´rie de sciences math., astr. et phys. V, 721. e Vladimirov, Yu.S., Mitskievich, N.V., and Horsky, J. (1987) Space, Time, Gravitation (Moscow: Mir). Revised English translation of a Russian edition of 1984 (Moscow: Nauka). Westenholz, C. von (1986) Differential Forms in Mathematical Physics (Amsterdam: North-Holland). Wheeler, J.A. (1962) Geometrodynamics (New York: Academic Press). Yano, K. (1955) The Theory of Lie Derivatives and Its Applications (Amsterdam: North-Holland). 27


Deduction of the Schwarzschild solution

First to use the ideas of symmetry to determine the general form of metric to describe the spherically symmetric gravitational field (spacetime) without initially excluding dependence of metric on the t variable. The variable r is introduced from the spherical symmetry (in the angular sense) like this was done by Synge. ds2 = e2α(r,t) dt2 − e2β(r,t) dr2 − r2 dϑ2 + sin2 ϑdφ2 ; θ(0) = eα dt, θ(1) = eβ dr, θ(2) = rdϑ, θ(3) = r sin ϑdφ; ˙ dθ(0) = α e−β θ(1) ∧ θ(0) , dθ(1) = βe−α θ(0) ∧ θ(1) , dθ(2) = 1 e−β θ(1) ∧ θ(2) , r 1 −β (1) cot ϑ (2) dθ(3) = r e θ ∧ θ(3) + r θ ∧ θ(3) ; ˙ ω (0) (1) = α e−β θ(0) + βe−α θ(1) , ω (2) (1) = 1 e−β θ(2) , ω (3) (1) = 1 e−β θ(3) , r r cot ϑ (3) (3) ω (2) = r θ ; ˙ Ω(0) (1) = α eα−β e−α−β θ(1) ∧ θ(0) + βeβ−α e−α−β θ(0) ∧ θ(1) , Ω(0) (2) = ω (0) (1) ∧ ω (1) (2) = −α e r θ(0) ∧ θ(2) , −2β Ω(0) (3) = −α e r θ(0) ∧ θ(3) , −2β ˙ −α−β Ω(2) (1) = −β e r θ(1) ∧ θ(2) − β e r θ(0) ∧ θ(2) , −2β ˙ −α−β Ω(3) (1) = −β e r θ(1) ∧ θ(3) − β e r θ(0) ∧ θ(3) , Ω(3) (2) = r12 1 − e−2β θ(3) ∧ θ(2) . Please check the following properties: ω (0) (i) = +ω (i) (0) , ω (i) (j) = −ω (j) (i) , and the same for Ω’s. These properties for ω’s in fact follow from the relations (3.11) given in the Topics of Riemannian Geometry, and they then apply only in the case of constant components of g(α)(β) , while for Ω’s they come from the general properties of the curvature tensor and do apply without any restrictions. Thus R(0) (1)(1)(0) = R(0) (2)(0)(2) R(2) (1)(2)(1) R(2) (1)(2)(0) R(3) (2)(3)(2) ˙ α eα−β − βeβ−α
−2β −2β



e−α−β ,

= R(0) (3)(0)(3) = −α e r , −2β = R(3) (1)(3)(1) = β e r , ˙ −α−β = R(3) (1)(3)(0) = β e r , = r12 1 − e−2β ; 28

R(0)(0) = − R(1)(1) =

˙ α eα−β − βeβ−α


e−α−β − 2α

e−2β , r

R(0)(1) r −2β R(2)(2) = R(3)(3) = (α − β ) e r −

˙ α eα−β − βeβ−α ˙ −α−β , = −2β e

e−α−β − 2β
1 r2

e−2β , r

1 − e−2β .

In a vacuum, the scalar curvature R = 0, thus Einstein’s equations reduce to R(α)(β) = 0. When we take (α)(β) ⇒ (0)(1), we see that β = β(r). Einstein’s equations now take the form −2β R(0)(0) = − α eα−β e−α−β − 2α e r = 0, −2β R(1)(1) = α eα−β e−α−β − 2β e r = 0, −2β R(2)(2) = R(3)(3) = (α − β ) e r − r12 1 − e−2β = 0. From R(0)(0) + R(1)(1) = 0 we see that α + β = f (t) (we already know that β(r), i.e. β does not depend on t. Now, from ds2 we see that the still not determined function f (t) can be simply eliminated by merger with the variable t of which now depends nothing. This is equivalent to put f (t) = 0 in our final results. Thus we simply put α + β = 0. Substituting β = −α into the equation R(2)(2) = 0, we come to the simple equation only for α: 2α (e2α ) = 1−e , which yields e2α = 1 − C , C being the only survived integrar r tion constant. It is now easy to show that the full set of Einstein’s equations in this case is completely solved with this α, and the solution in the form of ds2 is ds2 = (1 − 2M )dt2 − (1 − 2M )−1 dr2 − r2 dϑ2 + sin2 ϑdφ2 . M easily can be r r shown to be the central mass (in the units involving the Newtonian gravitational constant) creating this gravitational field. The very solution bears the name “Schwarzschild solution” having been obtained by Karl Schwarzschild after few days since Einstein’s paper containing the final form of his gravitation theory appeared in December of 1915.


Interpretation of the Schwarzschild metric: the first steps

The further steps: 1. In the region where r M , consider the geodesic equation in non-relativistic limit and weak field approximation. A compari29

son with the Newtonian theory then gives the interpretation of M . 2. Beginning with r > 2M , consider exact application of the geodesic equation to the radial free fall of a test particle on the Schwarzschild centre. Using s as the proper time parameter, calculate duration of the fall till r = 2M and till r = 0 (the field singularity). Then change to the variable t as a “time” parameter and show that the fall duration from r > 2M to r = 2M is infinite. A discussion of these conclusions. β σ τ d Let us take the geodesic equation in the form dλ (gαβ dx ) = 1 gστ,α dx dx . dλ 2 dλ dλ Obviously, two conservation laws follow from it for α = 0 and α = 3 (there is one more independent conservation law with a mixture of φ and ϑ completing the picture of absence of angular momentum as one of the cases of conservation, but we use the “angular” laws only as a justification of the radial fall treatment). The law corresponding to α = 0 has its exact expression as gtt dt = E, ds (5.1)

being the first integral of motion named “kinetic energy of the test particle per unit of its rest mass” (please don’t confuse E with !). The first step in our consideration is here to obtain the physical interpretation of the constant M in ds2 . To this end we take the radial component of the geodesic equation, that is d ds grr dr ds = 1 g 2 tt dt ds

+ grr

dr ds


(in the case of a radial fall) which identically reads 1 d2 r = − gtt . 2 ds 2 (5.2)

All this is done exactly, without approximations. It is easy to see that in the non-relativistic limit ds ⇒ dt; at the same time, we explicitly differentiate gtt with respect to r. This finally gives d2 r = − M , being precisely the 2nd Newtonian law when the mass M is dt2 r2 attracting a test mass falling onto it (in fact, M = Gm where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and m is value of the central mass in its usual units). You see: the approximative calculation was used at the final step, and only once. 30

The second step of our consideration of the Schwarzschild metric is to reveal the main property of its horizon, r = 2M . We here use for another dt time the (α = 0)-conservation law, g00 ds = E. Writing down ds2 , dividing it by ds2 , and taking into account the energy conservation law, we come exactly 2 to dr = E 2 − gtt , so that for a particle falling downward in the sense of r, ds ds = − dr E 2 − gtt , (5.3)

which can be considered as another first integral of motion, tohether with (5.1). To simplify the further calculation, let us take (only in this second step) E = 1 which means that the falling particle starts falling from spatial infinity with zero velocity (the state of rest), though we, of course, may follow its fall beginning with any final point outside r0 > 2M where this particle already had non-zero velocity towards the origin. The interval of the proper time s between the particle was passing the point r0 and then came to some r 1/2 dr minor value of r, is ∆s = r0 r√2M . The result of integration is obvious, and it is finite both for r = 2M and for r = 0. But this is true only for the proper time of the falling particle. If we would try to describe the time of fall in terms of the variable t, the result will be infinite already for r = 2M . Then what occurs with this r = 2M ?! Recall that the physical sense of coordinates is determined by their signature. Due to its definition used in these notes, the sign + marks the timelike dimension and the sign −, the other three spatial dimensions. But in Schwarzschild’s ds2 t is timelike and r, spacelike, only outside the horizon r0 = 2M , while inside the horizon t becomes spacelike and r, timelike; moreover, on the horizon these two coordinated completely lose their mathematical meaning, and there is nothing in the Schwarzschild metric what could indicate in which direction is the future and in which is the past of this timelike r inside the horizon, even we would somehow define what mean past and future for the variable t outside it. However there is a proper way to do this introducing Novikov’s coordinates simultaneously in whole spacetime while beginning with the usual Schwarzschildean coordinates. We shall not realize this program here in its complete form, but we shall now come to a sufficiently comprehensive hint how to do this, beginning with somewhat simpler synchronous coordinates.



The synchronous coordinates

Definition: Synchronous coordinates are such in which the time coordinate T lines represent a non-rotating timelike geodesic congruence parameterized by proper time along the lines, while the spatial coordinates lines belong to spacelike hypersurfaces perpendicular to the T -congruence. (Such congruences are also called “normal congruences” since absence of rotation is the necessary and sufficient condition of existence of global hypersurfaces orthogonal — “normal” — to these congruences.) Synchronous coordinates do not need any special kind of geometry of the manifolds in which they are built, so that one can construct synchronous coordinates in every pseudo-Riemannian spacetime. Let us first make it clear what mean the concepts of coordinates and of coordinates’ lines. The first corresponds to independent variables existing in the manifold under consideration. If we choose one of these variables (one coordinate) and consider it running through all values it can take, while fixing values of all other variables, we describe thus a line of this coordinate marked by all constant values which take the other coordinates on this line. If this line goes through the origin (where all coordinates, including that to which belongs this line, are equal to zero; this concept of the origin is in fact not so simple as it could seem initially), it is marked (labeled) by n − 1 zeros (n is the number of all independent variables on this manifold, thus it is n-dimensional), and this special line is then called the axis of the coordinate which we did not fix in this paragraph. It is interesting that when we consider a coordinates’ transformation, the lines of coordinates become automatically transformed in a way which deserves to be named “complementary” to the way of transformation of the very coordinates. An example seems to me here to be appropriate. Let us consider a two-dimensional spacetime {t, x} and apply to these coordinates the usual Galilean transformation (first written, by the way, by Newton): t = t, x = x − vt. The question is: how will then change the axes of coordinates? By the definition of the axes, we have to take for the axis of x the condition t = 0, but since t = t, this is at the same time the condition by which the axis of x is determined, consequently, the axes of x and of x coincide. As to the axis of t , we have to put x = 0; clearly, this gives the following equation to find this axis: x = vt, thus the axis of t differs from that of t, and we did really come to a certain complementarity (about which I never heard or read before). It remains to be added only that the t -lines here exactly coincide with the new time coordinate’s lines 32

appearing after the usual Lorentz transformation with the same velocity v as in the Galilean transformation several lines above. We now turn to of synchronous coordinates in the Schwarzschild spacetime. We already know that the timelike (outside the horizon, though there is a theorem asserting that the timelike, spacelike or null behaviour of a geodesic cannot change) radial geodesic of a particle freely falling towards the origin, is determined by the first integrals (5.1) and (5.3). They can be combined (to exclude ds) as dt + Edr gtt E 2 − gtt = 0, (6.1)

a relation which equivalently describes radial geodesics of the free fall, like we considered them in the beginning of section 2, though in another manner. But we need these geodesics to the end of introducing the coordinate lines of T in the synchronous system which now is under construction. How we come to these coordinate lines? Since the relations between coordinates T , R, on the one hand, and t, r, on the other, have to be of the type of T = T (t, r) and R = R(t, r), and recalling the general definition of coordinate lines in the second paragraph of this section (that coordinate lines of the coordinate T are determined by fixation of the alternative coordinate, here R: dR = 0), we have to consider the equation dR = ∂R dt + ∂R dr = 0 as an analogue of ∂t ∂r (6.1). Therefore let the definition of the new coordinate R be13 dR = Edt + E 2 dr gtt E 2 − gtt , (6.2)

an equation having as its left- and right-hand sides only total differentials (which is of great importance), and fixation of R, i.e. dR = 0, then really leads to determination of timelike geodesic lines which we need as coordinate lines of T . Why not construct dT (t, r) in a similar manner, that is dT = dt + F (r)dr (though we now are not concerned in geodesic properties of coordinate lines of R), and then determine the unknown function F (r)? The way to determine it is, moreover, clear: the mutual orthogonality of dT and dR and the unit property of the T T -component of the new synchronous metric. Look: dR · dT = GRT = 0, and then dT · dT = GT T = 1 (under G we
We introduced here and in (6.3) an extra constant factor E in dR and dT which is necessary for obtaining GT T = 1 and for achieving more symmetry in these expressions, as well as for having a simple form of (6.4).


now understand the new metric in T , R, ϑ, and φ coordinates; the angular coordinates remain without any change in the synchronous coordinates since they were orthogonal to t and r, hence also to T and to R). The calculations are extremely simple: EF (1) dR · dT = dt · dt + √ (r) dr · dr where dt · dt = g tt = 1/gtt , dr · dr = 2
gtt E −gtt

g rr = −gtt , while dt · dr = 0. Therefore in order to have dR · dT = 0, we take dT = Edt + E 2 − gtt dr. gtt (6.3)

(2) dT · dT = 1. (3) A non-trivial fact is that it is easy to express the old radial variable r in terms of the combination of new coordinates T and R, d(R − T ) = dr E 2 − gtt . (6.4)

This relation is immediately integrable and gives the concrete dependence r(R − T ), at least implicitly. As to the last two variables ϑ and φ which did not change, the metric coefficients corresponding to them now involve r2 (R − T ). Finally, the Schwarzschild spacetime is described in synchronous coordinates by the metric ds2 = dT 2 − E 2 dR2 − r2 (R − T ) dϑ2 + sin2 ϑdφ2 . 2M 2−1+ E r(R−T ) (6.5)

From these expressions we see that in the synchronous coordinates there remain no traces of the singularity earlier detected on the horizon in Schwarzschildean coordinates. This singularity only marked the inadmissible character of the usual Schwarzschildean coordinates on the horizon, without being in any sense related to the physical properties of the Schwarzschild solution; in the latter, there exists only the singularity at r = 0. Naturally, one might choose the constant E in such a way that there would appear zero in the denominator at some r, but this would simply be an inadequate restricted choice of the T -congruence in constructing the synchronous coordinates, nothing more. As an exercise, the case of E = 1 is proposed in which you have to perform all calculations up to the final results which will then be quite simple; then to draw a spacetime diagram in the T R-plane giving there some lines of constant r, including r = 0 (singularity) and r = 2M 34

(horizon). Look to which types pertain these two lines (timelike, spacelike, or null). Using as a definition of null (lightlike) lines ds2 = 0, draw in this diagram (approximately) from some convenient point on the horizon taken as a vertex, both generatrices of the light cone (to the future as well as to the past). Try to imagine how can go a timelike world line of a test particle from −∞ in T to the future, and determine the region from where this particle (say, a spaceship) can escape hitting the singularity, and from where it cannot. How could you relate this behaviour of a particle to the gravitational collapse phenomenon? Finally, answer the question: if we would like to compare the “point-like” object at the origin (r = 0) of the Schwarzschild spacetime with some type of a particle, which type would be acceptable — that of a usual massive particle, of a photon, or of a tachyon? — Definitively, the source of the Schwarzschild field is a tachyon with the mass M , moving with infinite 3-velocity, while always “remaining” at r = 0 (especially clear when we use a Penrose diagram).14


The Kerr solution “deduced”

Here we shall introduce the famous Kerr black hole solution using our generalization of the so-called “falling box” method first published by Sommerfeld (with a reference to Lenz) where the Schwarzschild solution was “deduced”. From 1949 till 1984 that was the only metric “deduced” by this extravagant method. Then I have invented similar, though more sophisticated approaches to semi-intuitively come first to the Kerr solution, then to the gravitational-electric Reissner–Nordstr¨m, and finally to the most complio cated three-parameter Kerr–Newman solution [see Vladimirov, Mitskievich and Horsk´ (1987)]. Now, with the example of the Kerr spacetime, we shall y make acquaintance with this Sommerfeld–Lenz method severely criticized by quite serious physicists, but after the “deduction” with its help of all four black hole metrics, safely survived at least for being used in the popular literature on gravitation. We begin with the Minkowski spacetime supposedly applicable far from
An addition of as small as you like charge (or angular momentum, or both) to Schwarzschild’s centre immediately results in the change of the spacelike (r = 0)-line (of the “point-like” singularity) to timelike and, consequently, of the tachyonic particle to a usual massive one, with the corresponding complete instantaneous restructuring of the Penrose or synchronous coordinates’ diagram.


localized sources of the gravitational field. Thus, taking for that “far” the mark of infinity ∞, we may write (in fact, using the spherical coordinates)
(0) (1) (2) (3) ds2 = dt2 − dr2 − r2 dϑ2 + sin2 ϑdφ2 = θ∞ − θ∞ − θ∞ − θ∞ ∞ (α) 2 2 2 2


from where the structure of all four basis covectors θ∞ becomes obvious. A transition to a non-uniformly rotating reference frame is done by locally applying Lorentz transformations so that every point has its own speed of motion directed towards an increasing angle φ. The absolute value of this velocity is a function V which depends, generally speaking, on both coordinates r and ϑ. Such a Lorentz transformation is not equivalent to the transformation of coordinates in the domain being studied (in practice, this domain is the whole of space), but is limited only to the transformation of the basis at each point. Thus, we have  √ (1) ˜ (2) (0) (3) ˜ ˜ θ(0) = θ∞ − V θ∞ / 1 − V 2 , θ(1) = θ∞ , θ(2) = θ∞ ,  (7.2) √ (3) (0) ˜  θ(3) = θ∞ − V θ∞ / 1 − V 2 . Now let the box with the observer be released from infinity. In this case we can write a new basis in which time has slowed down, and the lengths (α) in radial direction have shortened. This is equivalent to substitution of θ∞ first in (7.2) and then the resulting expressions into √ √ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ θ (0) = θ(0) 1 − v 2 , θ (1) = θ(1) / 1 − v 2 , θ (2) = θ(2) , θ (3) = θ(3) . (7.3) We have thus assumed that the observer makes his measurements in the rotating frame and notices the relativistic changes in his observations. Now let us do the reverse local Lorentz transformations with respect to (7.2) this time applied to the basis (7.3): √ θ(0) = θ (0) + V θ (3) /√1 − V 2 , θ(1) = θ (1) , θ(2) = θ (2) , (7.4) θ(3) = θ (3) + V θ (0) / 1 − V 2 . We now insert into(7.4) the θ (α) basis which is expressed in terms of the ˜ ˜ θ(α) from (7.3), and then write this expression in terms of θ(α) from (7.2). We postulate that the resulting basis (7.4) remains orthonormalized. A few manipulations yield ds2 = 1 − − 1+
v2 1−V 2 v2 V 2 1−V 2

θ∞ − (1 − v 2 )−1 θ∞ − θ∞ θ∞ + 36
(3) 2 2V v 2 (0) (3) θ θ . 1−V 2 ∞ ∞

(0) 2

(1) 2

(2) 2


The principle of correspondence with Newton’s theory presupposes, as this was assumed by Sommerfeld in his falling-box deduction of the Schwarzschild solution, that 2M ≡ 1 + 2ΦN , (7.6) gtt = 1 − r ΦN being the Newtonian gravitational potential considered there as a spherically symmetric solution of the Laplace equation. Here this should be also a solution of the Laplace equation, but now under the rotational symmetry and not spherical. Therefore it is now worth considering oblique spheroidal coordinates in flat space. These coordinates, r, ϑ, and φ, are defined as x + iy = (r + ia)eiφ sin ϑ, z = r cos ϑ, x2 + y 2 z 2 + 2 = 1. r 2 + a2 r (7.7)

We know that in the spherical coordinates ∆(1/r) = 0 when r = 0, and this equality holds under any translation of coordinates. Let this translation now be purely imaginary and directed along the z axis, i.e. x → x, y → y, and z → z −ia. Then it is easy to find that r = x2 + y 2 + z 2 → (r2 −a2 cos2 ϑ− 2iar cos ϑ)1/2 = r − ia cos ϑ. From here the expression for Newton’s potential in oblique spheroidal coordinates follows, ΦN = M −M r M → ΦN = −Re = 2 , r r − ia cos ϑ r + a2 cos2 ϑ (7.8)

since the Laplace equation is satisfied simultaneously by both the real and the imaginary parts of the translated potential. Hence we can get with the help of (7.6) (the abbreviation ρ2 = r2 + a2 cos2 ϑ is henceforth used) 2M r v2 = 2 . 2 1−V ρ (7.9)

We determine the velocity V using a model of rotating ring of some radius r0 for the source of the Kerr field, this ring being stationary relative to 1/2 the rotating reference frame (7.3). On the one hand, V = Ω (x2 + y 2 ) = 1/2 (r2 + a2 ) Ω sin ϑ, corresponds to the well-known relationship between angular and linear velocities in spherical coordinates. On the other hand, it is clear that the reference frame cannot rotate as a rigid body in all the world, otherwise the frame wouldn’t be extendible beyond the “light cylinder” as we dropped our box from infinity. Therefore the angular velocity Ω has also 37

to be a function of position. The ring lies naturally in the equatorial plane, so that the angular momentum along the z axis is L = mV
2 r0 + a2 , (r = r0 , ϑ = π/2).


We now introduce an important hypothesis which establishes a connection between the angular momentum and the Kerr parameter a, which is also characteristic for spheroidal coordinates (7.7), namely we put a = L/m These 2 last three statements yield Ω(r = r0 , ϑ = π/2) = a (r0 + a2 ). If we now add a second hypothesis, that the field is independent of the choice of the ring radius (depending only on its angular momentum), then we get Ω = a/(r2 + a2 ), and finally V = a(r2 + a2 )−1/2 sin ϑ. (7.11) It only remains for us to choose the expression for a basis θ∞ which would correspond to the assumed rotational symmetry (i.e., to the oblique spheroidal coordinates). The reader may substitute differentials of the coordinates x, y, and z from (7.7) him/herself into the Minkowski squared interval, hence getting a quadratic form with a non-diagonal term. This term, which contains the product drdφ, can be excluded by a simple change of the azimuth angle: dφ → dφ + a(r2 + a2 )−1 dr (a total differential), thus leading to a diagonal quadratic form. If now the square roots of the separate summands are taken, (α) we get the final form of the initial basis θ∞ : θ∞ = dt, θ∞ = θ∞ =
(2) (0) (1) ρ2 dr, r 2 +a2 √ (3) θ∞ = r 2 + (α)

(7.12) a2 sin ϑdφ.

ρ2 dϑ,

A mere substitution of these expressions into (7.5) yields the standard form of the Kerr metric in terms of the Boyer–Lindquist coordinates, ds2 = 1 −
2M r ρ2

dt2 −

ρ2 dr2 ∆

− ρ2 dϑ2

− r 2 + a2 + We remind that

2M ra2 sin2 ϑ ρ2

sin sin2 ϑdφ2 + 2 2M ra 2 ϑ dtdφ. ρ


ρ2 = r2 + a2 cos2 ϑ; the notations ∆ = r2 − 2M r + a2 38

(7.14) (7.15)

and Σ2 = (r2 + a2 )2 − a2 ∆ sin2 ϑ (7.16) are also frequently used (in the Kerr–Newman case ∆ = r2 − 2M r + a2 + Q2 where Q is electric charge of the Kerr–Newman centre given in the units of length, like this is done with M as we have seen in the deduction of the Schwarzschild metric). We give now a transparent hint to three anagrams of the Kerr metric with different combinations of three terms containing dt and/or dφ. First, these terms can be combined in two constructions giving a part (for two dimensions) of the complete four-dimensional orthonormal basis with rotation in the Kerr spacetime, 1− with ω= 2M r ρ2 (dt + ωdφ)2 − r2 + a2 + 2M a2 r sin2 ϑ ρ2 − 2M r sin2 ϑdφ2 (7.17)

2M ar sin2 ϑ . ρ2 − 2M r


Second, there is another combination of the same terms into a part of the pseudo-rotational orthonormal basis, ρ2 ∆ 2 Σ2 sin2 dt − (dφ − wdt)2 Σ2 ρ2 where15 (7.19)

2M ar . (7.20) Σ And finally, dt-dφ terms can be combined into a very simple construction w= ∆ dt − a sin2 ϑdφ ρ2

sin2 ϑ ρ2

r2 + a2 dφ − adt



including both rotation and pseudo-rotation [see Mitskievich and Vargas Rodr´ ıguez (2005) about them]. Similar situation occurs in the general (threeparametric) Kerr–Newman case too.

Please don’t confuse two very different letters from very different alphabets, ω and w!



Checking the Kerr solution

Now we have to verify if the metric (7.13) really satisfies Einstein’s equations in a vacuum. To this end we have first to find the connection 1-forms using the 1st Cartan structure equations. As the simplest one, we choose the orthonormal basis from (7.13) and (7.21), so that θ(0) = ρ∆ (dt − a sin2 ϑdφ), θ(1) = √ρ∆ dr, θ(2) = ρdϑ, θ(3) = sin ϑ [(r2 + a2 )dφ − adt]; ρ consequently, r 2 + a2 a 1 a sin ϑ (3) θ(3) , dt = √ θ(0) + θ . dφ = √ θ(0) + ρ sin ϑ ρ ρ ∆ ρ ∆ (8.2)


We now write down the direct d-differentiation of the basis covectors, and, in parallel, the respective 1st Cartan equations:
M (r2 −a2 cos2 ϑ)−a2 r sin2 ϑ (1) √ θ ∧ θ(0) ρ3 ∆ √ 2 − a3 sin ϑ cos ϑθ(2) ∧ θ(0) − 2aρ3 ∆ cos ϑθ(2) ∧ θ(3) , ρ dθ(0) = −ω (0) (1) ∧ θ(1) − ω (0) (2) ∧ θ(2) − ω (0) (3) ∧

dθ(0) =

(8.3) θ(3) ; (8.4) (8.5) (8.6)

dθ(1) = − a3 sin ϑ cos ϑθ(2) ∧ θ(1) , ρ dθ(1) = −ω (1) (0) ∧ θ(0) − ω (1) (2) ∧ θ(2) − ω (1) (3) ∧ θ(3) ; dθ(2) = r ρ3∆ θ(1) ∧ θ(2) , dθ(2) = −ω (2) (0) ∧ θ(0) − ω (2) (1) ∧ θ(1) − ω (2) (3) ∧ θ(3) ;
+a sin dθ(3) = r ρ3∆ θ(1) ∧ θ(3) + r ρ3 cot ϑθ(2) ∧ θ(3) + 2 ar ρ3 ϑ θ(1) ∧ θ(0) , dθ(3) = −ω (3) (0) ∧ θ(0) − ω (3) (1) ∧ θ(1) − ω (3) (2) ∧ θ(2) . √
2 2


We see that here the problem of algebraically solving the system of equations is somewhat more complicated than in the deduction of the Schwarzschild solution. √ course, there are present similar obvious terms of the type Of r ∆ (1) (2) dθ = ρ3 θ ∧ θ(2) where it is clear that θ(2) can pertain only to the connection 1-form and not to the basis covector following it in the exterior product since otherwise we should encounter ω (2) (2) which is identically equal to zero. Hence there should be ω (2) (1) (multiplied by θ(1) which has no other choice), and this ω (2) (1) should be proportional to θ(2) , the coefficient 40

of proportionality being quite obvious. However even here we run into an additional term in ω (2) (1) , that containing θ(1) and giving no contribution to the equation (8.5); this term being important in (8.4) where the term which was the only one being present in (8.5), loses its significance (simply disappears). To this collection of terms in our problem here two new trios of terms now are added: one trio being marked with the indices 0, 2, 3 and another, by 0, 1, 3 (in all mutually non-reducible successions). This could probably be not quite obvious, but such a situation (with each single trio) is typical in calculations of the connection 1-forms, and checking this rule via the practical use easily shows that we deal with them correctly. We now find that in all but one (ω (1) (2) ) connection 1-forms there now appear new terms (for the first trio, in the connection 1-forms where two of the indices 0, 2, and 3 are involved; similarly for the second trio with two indices of 0, 1, and 3). Let us see how they have to be treated. In the first trio, we write in the corresponding terms still not determined constant coefficients A, B, C (and we work similarly with the second trio introducing other three constant coefficients, say, P, Q, R):  2 2 2 2 2 sin ω (0) (1) = M (r −a cos √ϑ)−a r sin ϑ θ(0) + P ar ρ3 ϑ θ(3) ,   ρ3 ∆  √   a2 a ∆ (0) (0) (3)  ω (2) = − ρ3 sin ϑ cos ϑθ + A ρ3 cos ϑθ ,   √   ar sin ϑ (1) a ∆ (2) (0) ω (3) = B ρ3 cos ϑθ + Q ρ3 θ , √ (8.7) 2  ω (1) (2) = − a3 sin ϑ cos ϑθ(1) − r ρ3∆ θ(2) ,  ρ√    sin  ω (1) (3) = − r ρ3∆ θ(3) + R ar ρ3 ϑ θ(0) ,   √   r 2 +a2 a ∆ (2) (3) (0) ω (3) = − ρ3 cot ϑθ + C ρ3 cos ϑθ (we gave here the complete set of the connection 1-forms, though with the already mentioned terms containing still not determined coefficients). These constant coefficients are now determined by substitution of these connection 1-forms into the 1st structure equations written in (8.3)-(8.6). A comparison with dθ(α) found there in parallel lines yields two sets of algebraic equations (one for each trio) whose solutions are A = −B = C = 1, P = Q = R = −1.


Thus the final form of ωs reads ω (0) (1) = ω (0) (2) ω (0) (3) ω (1) (2) ω (1) (3) ω (2) (3) = = = = =
M (r2 −a2 cos2 ϑ)−a2 r sin2 ϑ (0) sin √ θ − ar ρ3 ϑ θ(3) , ρ3 ∆ √ 2 − a3 sin ϑ cos ϑθ(0) + a ρ3∆ cos ϑθ(3) , ρ√ sin − a ρ3∆ cos ϑθ(2) − ar ρ3 ϑ θ(1) , √ 2 − a3 sin ϑ cos ϑθ(1) − r ρ3∆ θ(2) , ρ√ sin − r ρ3∆ θ(3) − ar ρ3 ϑ θ(0) , √ 2 +a2 − r ρ3 cot ϑθ(3) + a ρ3∆ cos ϑθ(0) .

                    


Further we have to calculate the components of the Riemann curvature tensor using the second Cartan structure equations where most time and persistence are needed while performing differentiation in the first right-hand side term, but all these calculations are by no means problematic. Of course, in this first term it is advisable first to express ω (α) (β) in terms of the coordinated basis [although the very ω (α) (β) will continue to pertain to the tetrad basis (8.1)]. Then ω (0) (1) = ω (0) (2) ar sin2 ϑ M (r2 − a2 cos2 ϑ) (dt − a sin2 ϑdφ) + dφ, ρ4 ρ2 √ √ a2 ∆ a ∆ 2 = −2 4 sin ϑ cos ϑ(dt − a sin ϑdφ) + 2 sin ϑ cos ϑdφ, ρ ρ √ a ∆ ar ω (0) (3) = − 2 cos ϑdϑ − 2 dr, ρ ρ∆ √ r ∆ a2 (1) ω (2) = − √ sin ϑ cos ϑdr − 2 dϑ, ρ ρ2 ∆ √ r ∆ ω (1) (3) = − 2 sin ϑdφ, ρ (8.9)

(8.10) (8.11) (8.12) (8.13)

ω (2) (3) = −

a∆ r 2 + a2 cos ϑ[(r2 + a2 )dφ − adt] + 4 cos ϑ(dt − a sin2 ϑdφ) (8.14) ρ4 ρ

[sometimes written with fragments of basis covectors for convenience, since finally we have to bring results to their standard form with respect to the basis (8.1)]. Some of these expressions seem to be far from elegance, but what could be demanded from such a mixture of bases we used in their representation?! 42

Hawking, S.W., and Ellis, G.F.R. (1973) The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge: CUP). Hobson, M.P., Estathiou, G.P., and Lasenby, A.N. (2006) General Relativity. An Introduction to Physicists. (Cambridge: CUP). Islam, J.N. (1985) Rotating Fields in General Relativity (Cambridge: CUP). Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., and Wheeler, J.A. (1973) Gravitation (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman). Mitskievich, N.V. (2006) Relativistic Physics in Arbitrary Peference Frames (New York: Nova Science Publishers). Mitskievich, N.V., and Vargas Rodr´ ıguez, H. (2005) Gen. Relat. and Grav. 37, 781. Stephani, H., Kramer, D., MacCallum, M., Hoenselaers, C., and Herlt, E. (2003) Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations, 2nd edition (Cambridge: CUP). Synge, J.L. (1960) Relativity: The General Theory (Amsterdam: NorthHolland). Teukolsky, S.A. (1973) Astrophys. J. 185, 635. Vladimirov, Yu.S., Mitskievich, N.V., and Horsk´, J. (1987) Space, y Time, Gravitation (Moscow: Mir).