If we define our covariant derivative such that it eliminates the metric:
Due to this constraint, we can say that all metric-eliminating connections are symmetric possess this identity:
From here we can define our covariant derivative in terms of structure constants and torsion:
...subtract...
Notice that can be defined to have any , however there is only one such that the torsion is zero, and that is the Levi-Civita connection.
Let be the covariant derivative associated with the zero-torsion connection .
This is also known as the "Christoffel symbol of the 1st kind".
Misner Thorne Wheeler "Gravitation" list this as ,
so notice the last commutation coefficient is negative'd. This coincides with its reversed definition of , which would make sense. If you reverse b and c then the one term that is negative'd is the last commutation term.
However, in contrast, Wikipedia here holds my un-reversed definition of but still lists the same anholonomic definition. Maybe the authors of the different sections of the page used different conventions?
Christoffel of the 2nd kind / affine connection:
in a holonomic basis (so ):
Levi-Civita connection in a non-coordinate basis:
If and are linear combinations of a coordinate basis and dual then we can calculate the following:
Using the identities that and
Let
Let .
Let , so (from the 'structure constants' worksheet on structure constants of a linear transform of a coordinate basis)
...where is the Levi-Civita connection associated with the coordinate basis .
From there, of course,
and a coordinate basis has no commutation, so
so
If we use un-tilde-d indexes to denote transformation by the basis from the coordinate (tilde) to non-coordinate (non-tilde) basis,
then we can represent the transformed coordinate basis Levi-Civita connections as then we can represent this as ,
and the identity becomes:
Notice how this matches up with the covariant derivative definition:
If we want to transforms all this to the coordinate basis:
What does the non-coordinate metric-cancelling torsion-free covariant derivative of a object look like when represented with coordinate-basis indexes?
Let be the coordinate-metric-cancelling torsion-free covariant-derivative (for coordinate metric ).
Let be the non-coordinate-metric-cancelling torsion-free covariant-derivative (for non-coordinate metric ).
From the worksheet on "covariant derivative":
So in a non-coordinate basis for a non-coordinate-metric-cancelling torsion-free covariant-derivative:
... using (where tilde indexes are coordinate-basis and non-tilde are non-coordinate-basis)
...transform all indexes outside of derivatives from non-coordinate-basis to coordinate-basis:
...transform indexes within partial derivative:
...distribute partial through basis transforms of indexes of T:
...rearrange...
...using e times e-inverse equals identity, therefore
...relabel sum indexes and cancel like terms:
Looks like the metric-cancelling torsion-free covariant-derivative of one basis is just the transform of the metric-cancelling torsion-free covariant-derivative of another.
Hence the covariant derivative of a tensor is a tensor.
Let the contorsion tensor be the difference between an arbitrary connection and the Levi-Civita connection:
This shows that any connection can be uniquely defined by its contorsion, which is defined by its torsion.
Now let's revisit the definition of the non-coordinate metric-cancelling torsion-free connection with regards to the coordinate:
...substitute
...and solve:
So any metric-cancelling connection can be represented as the sum of the coordinate-basis torsion-free connection, plus the partial of the vielbein, plus the contorsion.
And if there is one unique Levi-Civita torsion-free metric-cancelling connection per metric, and there is one unique linear transform from coordinate to non-coordinate basis per diagonalized metric,
then there is only one unique torsion-free metric-cancelling connection per diagonalized metric (or per any non-coordinate basis?).
TODO but there isn't one unique transform for diagonalization.
Antisymmetry of contorsion tensor:
Trace of contorsion tensor:
...cancelling trace of the antisymmetric components of the torsion...
...applying the antisymmetry of the torsion...
Jacobi formula applied to metric tensor (more on worksheet #13):
...in a non-coordinate basis that is a linear map of a coordinate basis...
Jacobi formula of a coordinate metric in a coordinate basis:
Remember, is a non-coordinate metric expressed in the non-coordinate basis and is the coordinate metric expressed in the coordinate basis.
Going further:
transform both sides:
Trace of Levi-Civita connection on 1 and 3:
Mind you, even in non-coordinate orthonormal frames where constant, constant, and , this identity holds.
I mean, the trace of the connection isn't necessarily the volume element. Sometimes it is just zero.
Trace of Levi-Civita connection on 1 and 2:
using
and using
therefore
...and keep going to find...
What about
And is symmetric and therefore equal to , which is equal to
Equate the two definitions of to find:
Now this is the connection that a covariant divergence would use:
This is the Voss-Weyl identity.
Levi-Civita connection antisymmetry on 2nd and 3rd indexes:
In a holonomic basis this gives
Notice that
Therefore
Which looks just like our trace of the Levi-Civita connection above.
Trace of an arbitrary connection:
Trace of the Levi-Civita connection of the coordinate basis (which will equal the volume gradient):
...transformed into non-coordinates...
Difference of Levi-Civita connection of the coordinate basis vs the non-coordinate basis:
Trace of the Levi-Civita connection of the coordinate basis, in terms of the non-coordinate Levi-Civita connection:
Equate:
... subsitute ...
Levi-Civita change-of-basis:
change of basis of connection:
geodesics minimize distance along a trajectory (using a coordinate basis):
Minimize by solving for :
Let
We can just as easily minimize
Now solve for
Next we use integration by parts and assign the total integral to zero: for
Using , , and therefore ,
Substitute and
Reindex and factor out
Solve for
Separate the term with a factor of 2:
For
This fits with the above definition of a metric-cancelling covariant derivative that has no torsion and no commutation.
acceleration of geodesic motion:
...in the presence of torsion:
change of basis of torsion-free holonomic geodesic:
This matches the change-of-basis of metric-cancelling connection, which we can now substitute:
Holonomic Levi-Civita connection as the sum of two other connections, derived from their metrics:
Once again, (see Section 4 - metric tensor) and .
Tensor density.
Assuming is a metric-cancelling covariant derivative, calculate the covariant derivative of the scalar of the metric determinant:
Using :
Now we see that the covariant derivative of every scalar is not necessarily equal to the partial derivative of that scalar.
Raising it to a power:
Equating this to the original "covariant derivative equals partial derivative plus connection" rule:
So
Same but for metric determinant raised to a power:
Using the metric determinant square-root:
From here on we will refer to any scalar function mapping from our manifold to a real value, if it is scaled by , then it will be "of weight ".
Combining this with the original (p, q) tensor definition of covariant derivatives:
Let be a (p, q) tensor.
Let be a weight-m (p, q) tensor.
The covariant derivative of is defined as:
And now we have the up-add/down-subtract definition for the metric-cancelling covariant derivative of a tensor density of weight .
Keep twisting the knobs and we get...
And this is where I could have ended up much earlier if I had just used the chain rule without expanding the basis vectors/one-forms of the unweighted tensor's definition.