A brief introduction to Semi-Riemannian geometry and

general relativity

Hans Ringström

May 5, 2015
2
Contents

1 Scalar product spaces 1

1.1 Scalar products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Orthonormal bases adapted to subspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Causality for Lorentz scalar product spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Semi-Riemannian manifolds 7
2.1 Semi-Riemannian metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Pullback, isometries and musical isomorphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Causal notions in Lorentz geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 Warped product metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 Existence of metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6 Riemannian distance function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.7 Relevance of the Euclidean and the Minkowski metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Levi-Civita connection 15
3.1 The Levi-Civita connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Parallel translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4 Variational characterization of geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4 Curvature 25
4.1 The curvature tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2 Calculating the curvature tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3 The Ricci tensor and scalar curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4 The divergence, the gradient and the Laplacian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.5 Computing the covariant derivative of tensor fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.5.1 Divergence of a covariant 2-tensor field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.6 An example of a curvature calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.6.1 Computing the connection coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6.2 Calculating the components of the Ricci tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.7 The 2-sphere and hyperbolic space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

i
ii CONTENTS

4.7.1 The Ricci curvature of the 2-sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.7.2 The curvature of the upper half space model of hyperbolic space . . . . . . 36
Chapter 1

Scalar product spaces

A semi-Riemannian manifold (M, g) is a manifold M with a metric g. A smooth covariant 2-tensor

field g is a metric if it induces a scalar product on Tp M for each p ∈ M . Before proceeding to
the subject of semi-Riemannian geometry, it is therefore necessary to define the notion of a scalar
product on a vector space and to establish some of the basic properties of scalar products.

1.1 Scalar products

Definition 1. Let V be a finite dimensional real vector space and let g be a bilinear form on V
(i.e., an element of L(V, V ; R)). Then g is called a scalar product if the following conditions hold:

• g is symmetric; i.e., g(v, w) = g(w, v) for all v, w ∈ V .

• g is non-degenerate; i.e., g(v, w) = 0 for all w implies that v = 0.

A vector space V with a scalar product g is called a scalar product space.

Remark 2. Since a scalar product space is a vector space V with a scalar product g, it is natural
to write it (V, g). However, we sometimes, in the interest of brevity, simply write V .

The two basic examples are the Euclidean scalar product and the Minkowski scalar product.
Example 3. The Euclidean scalar product on Rn , 1 ≤ n ∈ Z, here denoted gEucl , is defined as
follows. If v = (v 1 , . . . , v n ) and w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) are two elements of Rn , then
n
X
gEucl (v, w) = v i wi .
i=1

The vector space Rn equipped with the Euclidean scalar product is called the (n-dimensional)
Euclidean scalar product space. The Minkowski scalar product on Rn+1 , 1 ≤ n ∈ Z, here denoted
gMin , is defined as follows. If v = (v 0 , v 1 , . . . , v n ) and w = (w0 , w1 , . . . , wn ) are two elements of
Rn+1 , then
Xn
gMin (v, w) = −v 0 w0 + v i wi .
i=1

The vector space Rn+1 equipped with the Minkowski scalar product is called the (n+1-dimensional)
Minkowski scalar product space.

In order to distinguish between different scalar products, it is convenient to introduce the notion
of an index.

1
2 CHAPTER 1. SCALAR PRODUCT SPACES

Definition 4. Let (V, g) be a scalar product space. Then the index, say ι, of g is the largest
integer that is the dimension of a subspace W ⊆ V on which g is negative definite.

As in the case of Euclidean geometry, it is in many contexts convenient to use particular bases,
such as an orthonormal basis; in other words, a basis {ei } such that g(ei , ej ) = 0 for i 6= j and
g(ei , ei ) = ±1 (no summation on i).
Lemma 5. Let (V, g) be a scalar product space. Then there is an integer d ≤ n := dim V and a
basis {ei }, i = 1, . . . , n, of V such that

• g(ei , ej ) = 0 if i 6= j.
• g(ei , ei ) = −1 if i ≤ d.
• g(ei , ei ) = 1 if i > d.

Moreover, d equals the index of g.

Proof. Let {vi } be a basis for V and let gij = g(vi , vj ). If G is the matrix with components gij ,
then G is a symmetric matrix. There is thus an orthogonal matrix T so that T GT t is diagonal. If
Tij are the components of T , then the ij’th component of T GT t is given by
!
X X X X
Tik Gkl Tjl = Tik g(vk , vl )Tjl = g Tik vk , Tjl vl .
k,l k,l k l

Introducing the basis {wi } according to

X
wi = Tik vk ,
k

it thus follows that g(wi , wj ) = 0 if i 6= j. Due to the non-degeneracy of the scalar product,
g(wi , wi ) 6= 0. We can thus define a basis {Ei } according to
1
Ei = wi .
|g(wi , wi )|1/2
Then g(Ei , Ei ) = ±1. By renumbering the Ei , one obtains a basis with the properties stated in
the lemma.
If g is definite, the last statement of the lemma is trivial. Let us therefore assume that 0 < d < n.
Clearly, the index ι of g satisfies ι ≥ d. In order to prove the opposite inequality, let W be a
subspace of V such that g is negative definite on W and such that dim W = ι. Let N be the
subspace of V spanned by {ei }, i = 1, . . . , d, and ϕ : W → N be the map defined by
d
X
ϕ(w) = − g(w, ei )ei .
i=1

If ϕ is injective, the desired conclusion follows. Moreover,

d
X n
X
w=− g(w, ei )ei + g(w, ei )ei ; (1.1)
i=1 i=d+1

this equality is a consequence of the fact that if we take the scalar product of ei with the left hand
side minus the right hand side, then the result is zero for all i (so that non-degeneracy implies
that (1.1) holds). If ϕ(w) = 0, we thus have
n
X
w= g(w, ei )ei .
i=d+1
1.2. ORTHONORMAL BASES ADAPTED TO SUBSPACES 3

Compute
n
X n
X
g(w, w) = g(w, ei )g(w, ej )g(ei , ej ) = g(w, ei )2 ≥ 0.
i,j=d+1 i=d+1

Since g is negative definite on W , this implies that w = 0. Thus ϕ is injective, and the lemma
follows.

Let g and h be a scalar products on V and W respectively. A linear map T : V → W is said

to preserve scalar products if h(T v1 , T v2 ) = g(v1 , v2 ). If T preserves scalar products, then it is
injective (exercise). A linear isomorphism T : V → W that preserves scalar products is called a
linear isometry.
Lemma 6. Scalar product spaces V and W have the same dimension and index if and only if
there exists a linear isometry from V to W .
Exercise 7. Prove Lemma 6.

1.2 Orthonormal bases adapted to subspaces

Two important special cases of the notion of a scalar product space are the following.
Definition 8. A scalar product with index 0 is called a Riemannian scalar product and a vector
space with a Riemannian scalar product is called Riemannian scalar product space. A scalar
product with index 1 is called a Lorentz scalar product and a vector space with a Lorentz scalar
product is called Lorentz scalar product space.

If V is an n-dimensional Riemannian scalar product space, then there is a linear isometry from
V to the n-dimensional Euclidean scalar product space. If V is an n + 1-dimensional Lorentz
scalar product space, then there is a linear isometry from V to the n + 1-dimensional Minkowski
scalar product space. Due to this fact, and the fact that the reader is assumed to be familiar with
Euclidean geometry, we here focus on the Lorentz setting.
In order to understand Lorentz scalar product spaces better, it is convenient to make a few more
observations of a linear algebra nature. To begin with, if (V, g) is a scalar product space and W
is a subspace of V , then
W ⊥ = {v ∈ V : g(v, w) = 0 ∀w ∈ W }.
In contrast with the Riemannian setting, W + W ⊥ does not equal V in general.
Exercise 9. Give an example of a Lorentz scalar product space (V, g) and a subspace W of V
such that W + W ⊥ 6= V .

On the other hand, we have the following result.

Lemma 10. Let W be a subspace of a scalar product space V . Then

1. dim W + dim W ⊥ = dim V .

2. (W ⊥ )⊥ = W .
Exercise 11. Prove Lemma 10.

Another useful observation is the following.

Exercise 12. Let W be a subspace of a scalar product space V . Then

dim(W + W ⊥ ) + dim(W ∩ W ⊥ ) = dim W + dim W ⊥ . (1.2)

4 CHAPTER 1. SCALAR PRODUCT SPACES

Even though W + W ⊥ does not in general equal V , it is of interest to find conditions on W such
that the relation holds. One such condition is the following.

Definition 13. Let W be a subspace of a scalar product space V . Then W is said to be non-
degenerate if g|W is non-degenerate.

We then have the following observation.

Lemma 14. Let W be a subspace of a scalar product space V . Then W is non-degenerate if and
only if V = W + W ⊥ .

Proof. Due to Lemma 10 and (1.2), it is clear that W + W ⊥ = V if and only if W ∩ W ⊥ = {0}.
However, W ∩ W ⊥ = {0} is equivalent to W being non-degenerate.

One important consequence of this observation is the following.

Corollary 15. Let W1 be a subspace of a scalar product space (V, g). If W1 is non-degenerate,
then W2 = W1⊥ is also non-degenerate. Thus Wi , i = 1, 2, are scalar product spaces with indices
ιi ; the scalar product on Wi is given by gi = g|Wi . If ι is the index of V , then ι = ι1 +ι2 . Moreover,
there is an orthonormal basis {ei }, i = 1, . . . , n, of V which is adapted to W1 and W2 in the sense
that {ei }, i = 1, . . . , d, is a basis for W1 and {ei }, i = d + 1, . . . , n, is a basis for W2 .

Proof. Since W1 is non-degenerate and W2⊥ = W1 (according to Lemma 10), Lemma 14 implies
that
V = W1 + W2 = W2⊥ + W2 .
Applying Lemma 14 again implies that W2 is non-degenerate. Defining gi as in the statement of
the corollary, it is clear that (Wi , gi ), i = 1, 2, are scalar product spaces. Due to Lemma 5, we
know that each of these scalar product spaces have an orthonormal basis. Let {ei }, i = 1, . . . , d,
be an orthonormal basis for W1 and {ei }, i = d + 1, . . . , n, be an orthonormal basis for W2 .
Then {ei }, i = 1, . . . , n, is an orthonormal basis of V . Since ι1 equals the number of elements
of {ei }, i = 1, . . . , d, with squared norm equal to −1, and similarly for ι2 and ι, it is clear that
ι = ι1 + ι2 .

1.3 Causality for Lorentz scalar product spaces

One important notion in Lorentz scalar product spaces is that of causality, or causal character of
a vector.

Definition 16. Let (V, g) be a Lorentz scalar product space. Then a vector v ∈ V is said to be

1. timelike if g(v, v) < 0,

2. spacelike if g(v, v) > 0 or v = 0,

3. lightlike or null if g(v, v) = 0 and v 6= 0.

The classification of a vector v ∈ V according to the above is called the causal character of the
vector v.

The importance of this terminology stems from its connection to the notion of causality in physics.
According to special relativity, no information can travel faster than light. Assuming γ to be a
curve in the Minkowski scalar product space (γ should be thought of as the trajectory of a physical
object; a particle, a spacecraft, light etc.), the speed of the corresponding object relative to that
of light is characterized by the causal character of γ̇ with respect to the Minkowski scalar product.
1.3. CAUSALITY FOR LORENTZ SCALAR PRODUCT SPACES 5

If γ̇ is timelike, the speed is strictly less than that of light, if γ̇ is lightlike, the speed equals that
of light.
In Minkowski space, if v = (v 0 , v̄) ∈ Rn+1 , where v̄ ∈ Rn , then

g(v, v) = −(v 0 )2 + |v̄|2 ,

where |v̄| denotes the usual norm of an element v̄ ∈ Rn . Thus v is timelike if |v 0 | > |v̄|, lightlike
if |v 0 | = |v̄| =
6 0 and spacelike if |v 0 | < |v̄| or v = 0. The set of timelike vectors consists of two
components; the vectors with v 0 > |v̄| and the vectors with −v 0 > |v̄|. Choosing one of these
components corresponds to a choice of so-called time orientation (a choice of what is the future
and what is the past). Below we justify these statements and make the notion of a time orientation
more precise. However, to begin with, it is convenient to introduce some additional terminology.
Definition 17. Let (V, g) be a scalar product space and W ⊆ V be a subspace. Then W is said
to be spacelike if g|W is positive definite; i.e., if g|W is nondegenerate of index 0. Moreover, W is
said to be lightlike if g|W is degenerate. Finally, W is said to be timelike if g|W is nondegenerate
of index 1.

It is of interest to note the following consequence of Corollary 15.

Lemma 18. Let (V, g) be a Lorentz scalar product space and W ⊆ V be a subspace. Then W is
timelike if and only if W ⊥ is spacelike.
Remark 19. The words timelike and spacelike can be interchanged in the statement.

Let (V, g) be a Lorentz scalar product space. If u ∈ V is a timelike vector, the timecone of V
containing u, denoted C(u), is defined by

C(u) = {v ∈ V : g(v, v) < 0, g(v, u) < 0}.

The opposite timecone is defined to be C(−u). Note that C(−u) = −C(u). If v ∈ V is timelike,
then v has to belong to C(u) or C(−u). The reason for this is that (Ru)⊥ is spacelike; cf.
Lemma 18. The following observation will be of importance in the discussion of the existence of
Lorentz metrics.
Lemma 20. Let (V, g) be a Lorentz scalar product space and v, w ∈ V be timelike vectors. Then
v and w are in the same timecone if and only if g(v, w) < 0.

Proof. Consider a timecone C(u) (where we, without loss of generality, can assume that u is a
unit timelike vector). Due to Corollary 15, there is an orthonormal basis {eα }, α = 0, . . . , n, of
V such that e0 = u. Then v ∈ C(u) if and only if v 0 > 0, where v = v α eα . Note also that if
x = xα eα , then x is timelike if and only if |x0 | > |x̄|, where x̄ = (x1 , . . . , xn ) and |x̄| denotes the
ordinary Euclidean norm of x̄ ∈ Rn .
Let v and w be timelike and define v α , wα , v̄ and w̄ in analogy with the above. Compute

g(v, w) = −v 0 w0 + v̄ · w̄, (1.3)

where · denotes the ordinary dot product on Rn . Since v and w are timelike, |v 0 | > |v̄| and
|w0 | > |w̄|, so that
|v̄ · w̄| ≤ |v̄||w̄| < |v 0 w0 |.
Thus the first term on the right hand side of (1.3) is bigger in absolute value than the second
term. In particular, g(v, w) < 0 if and only if v 0 and w0 have the same sign.
Assume that v and w are in the same timecone; say C(u). Then v 0 , w0 > 0, so that g(v, w) < 0
by the above. Assume that g(v, w) < 0 and fix a timelike unit vector u. Then v 0 and w0 have the
same sign by the above. If both are positive, v, w ∈ C(u). If both are negative, v, w ∈ C(−u). In
particular, v, w are in the same timecone. The lemma follows.
6 CHAPTER 1. SCALAR PRODUCT SPACES

As a consequence of Lemma 20, timecones are convex; in fact, if 0 ≤ a, b ∈ R are not both zero and
v, w ∈ V are in the same timecone, then av + bw is timelike and in the same timecone as v and w.
In particular, it is clear that the timelike vectors can be divided into two components. A choice
of time orientation of a Lorentz scalar product space is a choice of timecone, say C(u). A Lorentz
scalar product space with a time orientation is called a time oriented Lorentz scalar product space.
Given a choice of time orientation, the timelike vectors belonging to the corresponding timecone
are said to be future oriented. Let v be a null vector and C(u) be a timecone. Then g(v, u) 6= 0.
If g(v, u) < 0, then v is said to be future oriented, and if g(v, u) > 0, then v is said to be past
oriented.
Chapter 2

Semi-Riemannian manifolds

The main purpose of the present chapter is to define the notion of a semi-Riemannian manifold
and to describe some of the basic properties of such manifolds.

2.1 Semi-Riemannian metrics

To begin with, we need to define the notion of a metric.
Definition 21. Let M be a smooth manifold and g be a smooth covariant 2-tensor field on M .
Then g is called a metric on M if the following holds:

• g induces a scalar product on Tp M for each p ∈ M .

• the index ι of the scalar product induced on Tp M by g is independent of p.

The constant index ι is called the index of the metric g.

Definition 22. A semi-Riemannian manifold is a smooth manifold M together with a metric g
on M .

Two important special cases are Riemannian and Lorentz manifolds.

Definition 23. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold. If the index of g is 0, the metric is
called Riemannian, and (M, g) is called a Riemannian manifold. If the index equals 1, the metric
is called a Lorentz metric, and (M, g) is called a Lorentz manifold.

Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold. If (xi ) are local coordinates, the corresponding com-
ponents of g are given by
gij = g(∂xi , ∂xj ),
and g can be written
g = gij dxi ⊗ dxj .
Since gij are the components of a non-degenerate matrix, there is a matrix with components g ij
such that
g ij gjk = δki .
Note that the functions g ij are smooth, whenever they are defined. Moreover, g ij = g ji . In fact,
g ij are the components of a smooth, symmetric contravariant 2-tensor field. As will become clear,
this construction is of central importance in many contexts.
Again, the basic examples of metrics are the Euclidean metric and the Minkowski metric.

7
8 CHAPTER 2. SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

Definition 24. Let (xi ), i = 1, . . . , n, be the standard coordinates on Rn . Then the Euclidean
metric on Rn , denoted gE , is defined as follows. Let (v 1 , . . . , v n ), (w1 , . . . , wn ) ∈ Rn and
 
i ∂  n i ∂ 
∈ Tp Rn .
 
v=v ∈ Tp R , w = w
∂xi p ∂xi p

Then
n
X
gE (v, w) = v i wi .
i=1

Let (x ), α = 0, . . . , n, be the standard coordinates on Rn+1 . Then the Minkowski metric on

α

Rn+1 , denoted gM , is defined as follows. Let (v 0 , . . . , v n ), (w0 , . . . , wn ) ∈ Rn+1 and

 
∂  α ∂ 
v = vα n+1
∈ Tp Rn+1 .

α
∈ Tp R , w = w α
∂x p  ∂x p

Then
n
X
gM (v, w) = −v 0 w0 + v i wi .
i=1

In Section 2.7 we discuss the relevance of these metrics.

2.2 Pullback, isometries and musical isomorphisms

Let M and N be smooth manifolds and h be a semi-Riemannian metric on N . If F : M → N
is a smooth map, F ∗ h is smooth symmetric covariant 2-tensor field. However, it is not always a
semi-Riemannian metric. If h is a Riemannian metric, then F ∗ h is a Riemannian metric if and
only if F is a smooth immersion; cf. [2, Proposition 13.9, p 331]. However, if h is a Lorentz
metric, F ∗ h need not be a Lorentz metric even if F is a smooth immersion (on the other hand, it
is necessary for F to be a smooth immersion in order for F ∗ h to be a Lorentz metric).

Exercise 25. Give an example of a smooth manifold M , a Lorentz manifold (N, h) and a smooth
immersion F : M → N such that F ∗ h is not a semi-Riemannian metric on M .

Due to this complication, the definition of a semi-Riemannian submanifold is slightly different

from that of a Riemannian submanifold; cf. [2, p. 333].

Definition 26. Let S be a submanifold of a semi-Riemannian manifold (M, g) with inclusion

ι : S → M . If ι∗ g is a metric on S, then S, equipped with this metric, is called a semi-Riemannian
submanifold of (M, g). Moreover, the metric ι∗ g is called the induced metric on S.

Two fundamental examples are the following.

Example 27. Let Sn ⊂ Rn+1 denote the n-sphere and ιSn : Sn → Rn+1 the corresponding
inclusion. Then the round metric on Sn , gSn , is defined by gSn = ι∗Sn gE ; cf. Definition 24. Let
H n denote the set of x ∈ Rn+1 such that gMin (x, x) = −1 and let ιH n : H n → Rn+1 denote the
corresponding inclusion. Then the hyperbolic metric on H n , gH n , is defined by gH n = ι∗H n gM ; cf.
Definition 24.

Remark 28. Both (Sn , gSn ) and (H n , gH n ) are Riemannian manifolds (we shall not demonstrate
this fact in these notes; the interested reader is referred to, e.g., [1, Chapter 4] for a more detailed
discussion). Note that there is a certain symmetry in the definitions: Sn is the set of x ∈ Rn+1
such that gEucl (x, x) = 1 and H n is the set of x ∈ Rn+1 such that gMin (x, x) = −1.
2.2. PULLBACK, ISOMETRIES AND MUSICAL ISOMORPHISMS 9

Another important example is obtained by considering a submanifold, say S, of Rn . If ι : S → Rn

is the corresponding inclusion, then ι∗ gE is a Riemannian metric on S (the Riemannian metric
induced by the Euclidean metric). If S is oriented, there is also a way to define a Euclidean notion
of volume of S (in specific cases, it may of course be more natural to speak of length or area).
In order to justify this observation, note, first of all, that on an oriented Riemannian manifold
(M, g), there is a (uniquely defined) Riemannian volume form, say ωg ; cf. [2, Proposition 15.29].
The Riemannian volume of (M, g) is then given by
Z
Vol(M, g) = ωg ,
M

assuming that this integral makes sense. If S is an oriented submanifold of Rn , the volume of S
is then defined to be the volume of the oriented Riemannian manifold (S, ι∗ gE ).
A fundamental notion in semi-Riemannian geometry is that of an isometry.

Definition 29. Let (M, g) and (N, h) be semi-Riemannian manifolds and F : M → N be a

smooth map. Then F is called an isometry if F is a diffeomorphism such that F ∗ h = g.

Remark 30. If F is an isometry, than so is F −1 . Moreover, the composition of two isometries is

an isometry. Finally, the identity map on M is an isometry. As a consequence of these observa-
tions, the set of isometries of a semi-Riemannian manifold is a group, referred to as the group of
isometries.

It will be useful to keep in mind that a semi-Riemannian metric induces an isomorphism between
the sections of the tangent bundle and the sections of the cotangent bundle.

Lemma 31. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold. If X ∈ X(M ), then X [ is defined to be

the one-form given by
X [ (Y ) = g(X, Y )
for all Y ∈ X(M ). The map taking X to X [ is an isomorphism between X(M ) and X∗ (M ).
Moreover, this isomorphism is linear over the functions. In particular, given a one-form η, there
is thus a unique X ∈ X(M ) such that X [ = η. The vectorfield X is denoted η ] .

Remark 32. Here X∗ (M ) denotes the smooth sections of the cotangent bundle; i.e., the one-forms.

Proof. Note that, given X ∈ X(M ), it is clear that X [ is linear over C ∞ (M ). Due to the tensor
characterization lemma, [2, Lemma 12.24, p. 318], is is thus clear that X [ ∈ X∗ (M ). In addition,
it is clear that the map taking X to X [ is linear over C ∞ (M ).
In order to prove injectivity of the map, assume that X [ = 0. Then g(X, Y ) = 0 for all Y ∈ X(M ).
In particular, given p ∈ M , g(Xp , v) = 0 for all v ∈ Tp M . Due to the non-degeneracy of the metric,
this implies that Xp = 0 for all p ∈ M . Thus X = 0 and the map is injective.
In order to prove surjectivity, let η ∈ X∗ (M ). To begin with, let us try to find a vectorfield X on
a coordinate neighbourhood U such that X [ = η on U . If ηi are the components of η with respect
to local coordinates, then we can define a vectorfield on U by
∂
X = g ij ηj .
∂xi
In this expression, g ij are the components of the inverse of the matrix with components gij . Then
X is a smooth vectorfield on U . Moreover,

X [ (Y ) = g(X, Y ) = gik X i Y k = gik g ij ηj Y k = δkj ηj Y k = ηj Y j = η(Y ).

Thus X [ = η. Due to the uniqueness, the local vectorfields can be combined to give an X ∈ X(M )
such that X [ = η. This proves surjectivity.
10 CHAPTER 2. SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

The maps
[ : X(M ) → X∗ (M ), ] : X∗ (M ) → X(M )
are sometimes referred to as musical isomorphisms. In the physics literature, where authors prefer
to write everything in coordinates, the maps ] and [ are referred to as raising and lowering indices
using the metric; if ηi are the components of a one-form, then g ij ηj are the components of the
corresponding vectorfield; if X i are the components of a vectorfield, then gij X j are the components
of the corresponding one-form. However, the musical isomorphisms are just a special case of a
general construction. If A is a tensor field of mixed (k, l)-type, then we can, for example, lower
one of the indices of A according to
gii1 Aji11···i
···jl .
k

The result defines a tensor field of mixed (k − 1, l + 1)-type. Again, this is just a special case of
a construction called contraction. The idea is the following. If Aij11···i
···jl are the components of a
k

tensor field of mixed (k, l)-type with respect to local coordinates, then setting ir = js = i and
summing over i yields a tensor field of mixed (k − 1, l − 1)-type. For example g i1 i2 ηj1 are the
components of a tensor field of mixed (2, 1)-type. Applying the contraction construction to i2 and
j1 yields the components of η ] .

Exercise 33. Let A be a tensor field of mixed (2, 2)-type. The components of A with respect to
local coordinates are Aji11ij22 . Prove that Aij11ii (where Einstein’s summation convention is enforced)
are the components of a tensor field of mixed (1, 1)-type.

2.3 Causal notions in Lorentz geometry

In Definition 16 we assigned a causal character to vectors in a Lorentz scalar product space. The
same can be done for vectors, curves etc. in a Lorentz manifold. However, before we do so, let us
discuss the notion of a time orientation in the context of Lorentz manifolds.

Definition 34. Let (M, g) be a Lorentz manifold. A time orientation of (M, g) is a choice of time
orientation of each scalar product space (Tp M, gp ), p ∈ M , such that the following holds. For each
p ∈ M , there is an open neighbourhood U of p and a smooth vectorfield X on U such that Xq is
future oriented for all q ∈ U . A Lorentz metric g on a manifold M is said to be time orientable if
(M, g) has a time orientation. A Lorentz manifold (M, g) is said to be time orientable if (M, g) has
a time orientation. A Lorentz manifold with a time orientation is called a time oriented Lorentz
manifold.

Remark 35. Here gp denotes the scalar product induced on Tp M by g. The requirement that
there be a local vectorfield with the properties stated in the definition is there to ensure the
“continuity” of the choice of time orientation.

A choice of time orientation for a Lorentz manifold corresponds to a choice of which time direction
corresponds to the future and which time direction corresponds to the past. In physics, time
oriented Lorentz manifolds are of greater interest than non-time oriented ones. For this reason,
the following terminology is sometimes introduced.

Definition 36. A time oriented Lorentz manifold is called a spacetime.

Let us now introduce some of the notions of causality that we shall use.

Definition 37. Let (M, g) be a Lorentz manifold. A vector v ∈ Tp M is said to be timelike,

spacelike or lightlike if it is timelike, spacelike or lightlike, respectively, with respect to the scalar
product gp induced on Tp M by g. A vector field X on M is said to be timelike, spacelike or lightlike
if Xp is timelike, spacelike or lightlike, respectively, for all p ∈ M . A smooth curve γ : I → M
(where I is an open interval) is said to be timelike, spacelike or lightlike if γ̇(t) is timelike, spacelike
2.4. WARPED PRODUCT METRICS 11

or lightlike, respectively, for all t ∈ I. A submanifold S of M is said to be spacelike if S is a semi-

Riemannian submanifold of M such that the induced metric is Riemannian. A tangent vector
which is either timelike of lightlike is said to be causal. The terminology concerning vectorfields
and curves is analogous.

In case (M, g) is a spacetime, it is also possible to speak of future directed timelike vectors etc.
Note, however, that a causal curve is said to be future directed if and only if γ̇(t) is future oriented
for all t in the domain of definition of γ. Our requirements concerning vector fields is similar.

2.4 Warped product metrics

One construction which is very important in the context of general relativity is that of a so-called
warped product metric.

Definition 38. Let (Mi , gi ), i = 1, 2, be semi-Riemannian manifolds, πi : M1 × M2 → Mi be the

projection taking (p1 , p2 ) to pi , and f ∈ C ∞ (M1 ) be strictly positive. Then the warped product,
denoted M = M1 ×f M2 , is the manifold M = M1 × M2 with the metric

g = π1∗ g1 + (f ◦ π1 )2 π2∗ g2 .

Exercise 39. Prove that the warped product is a semi-Riemannian manifold.

One special case of this construction is obtained by demanding that f = 1. In that case, the
resulting warped product is referred to as a semi-Riemannian product manifold. One basic example
of a warped product is the following.

Example 40. Let M1 = I (where I is an open interval), M2 = R3 , g1 = −dt ⊗ dt, g2 = gE (the

Euclidean metric on R3 ) and f be a smooth strictly positive function on I. Then the resulting
warped product is the manifold M = I × R3 with the metric
3
X
g = −dt ⊗ dt + f 2 (t) dxi ⊗ dxi ,
i=1

where t is the coordinate on the first factor in I × R3 and xi , i = 1, 2, 3, are the coordinates on
the last three factors. The geometry of most models of the universe used by physicists today are
of the type (M, g). What varies from model to model is the function f .

2.5 Existence of metrics

In semi-Riemannian geometry, a fundamental question to ask is: given a manifold, is there a
semi-Riemannian metric on it? In the Riemannian setting, this question has a simple answer.

Proposition 41. Every smooth manifold with or without boundary admits a Riemannian metric.

Proof. The proof can be found in [2, p. 329].

In the Lorentzian setting, the situation is more complicated.

Proposition 42. A manifold M , n := dim M ≥ 2, admits a time orientable Lorentz metric if

and only if there is an X ∈ X(M ) such that Xp 6= 0 for all p ∈ M .
12 CHAPTER 2. SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

Proof. Assume that there is a nowhere vanishing smooth vectorfield X on M . Let h be a Rieman-
nian metric on M (such a metric exists due to Proposition 41). By normalizing X if necessary, we
can assume h(X, X) = 1. Define g according to
g = −2X [ ⊗ X [ + h,
where X [ is defined in Lemma 31. Then
g(X, X) = −2[X [ (X)]2 + 1 = −1.
Given p ∈ M , let e2 |p , . . . , en |p ∈ Tp M be such that e1 |p , . . . , en |p is an orthonormal basis for
(Tp M, hp ), where e1 |p = Xp . Then {ei |p } is an orthonormal basis for (Tp M, gp ). Moreover, it is
clear that the index of gp is 1. Thus (M, g) is a Lorentz manifold. Since we can define a time
orientation by requiring Xp to be future oriented for all p ∈ M , it is clear that M admits a time
orientable Lorentz metric.
Assume now that M admits a time orientable Lorentz metric g. Fix a time orientation. Let {Uα }
be an open covering of M such that on each Uα there is a timelike vector field Xα which is future
pointing (that such a covering exists is a consequence of the definition of a time orientation; cf.
Definition 34). Let {φα } be a partition of unity subordinate to the covering {Uα }. Define X by
X
X= φα Xα .
α

Fix a p ∈ M . At this point, the sum consists of finitely many terms, so that
k
X
Xp = ai Xi,p ,
i=1

where 0 < ai ∈ R and Xi,p ∈ Tp M are future oriented timelike vectors. Due to Lemma 20 it is
then clear that Xp is a future oriented timelike vector. In particular, X is thus a future oriented
timelike vectorfield. Since such a vectorfield is nowhere vanishing, it is clear that M admits a
non-zero vector field.

It is of course natural to ask what happens if we drop the condition that (M, g) be time orientable.
However, in that case there is a double cover which is time orientable (for those unfamiliar with
covering spaces, we shall not make any use of this fact). It is important to note that the existence
of a Lorentz metric is a topological restriction; not all manifolds admit Lorentz metrics. As an
orientation in the subject of Lorentz geometry, it is also of interest to make the following remark
(we shall not make any use of the statements made in the remark in what follows).
Remark 43. If (M, g) is a spacetime such that M is a closed manifold (in other words, M is
compact and without boundary), then there is a closed timelike curve in M . In other words,
there is a future oriented timelike curve γ in M such that γ(t1 ) = γ(t2 ) for some t1 < t2 in
the domain of definition of γ. This means that it is possible to travel into the past. Since this
is not very natural in physics, spacetimes (M, g) such that M is closed are not very natural
(in contrast with the Riemannian setting). For a proof of this statement, see [1, Lemma 10,
p. 407]. In general relativity, one often requires spacetimes to satisfy an additional requirement
called global hyperbolicity (which we shall not define here) which involves additional conditions
concerning causality. Moreover, globally hyperbolic spacetimes (M, g), where n + 1 = dim M , are
topologically products M = R × Σ where Σ is an n-dimensional manifold.

2.6 Riemannian distance function

Let (M, g) be a Riemannian manifold. Then it is possible to associate a distance function
d : M × M → [0, ∞)
2.7. RELEVANCE OF THE EUCLIDEAN AND THE MINKOWSKI METRICS 13

with (M, g). Since the basic properties of the Riemannian distance function are described in [2,
pp. 337–341], we shall not do so here.

2.7 Relevance of the Euclidean and the Minkowski metrics

It is of interest to make some comments concerning the relevance of the Euclidean and the
Minkowski metrics. The Euclidean metric gives rise to Euclidean geometry, and the relevance
of this geometry is apparent in much of mathematics. For that reason, we here focus on the
Minkowski metric.
Turning to Minkowski space, it is of interest to recall the origin of the special theory of relativity
(for those uninterested in physics, the remainder of this section can be skipped). In special
relativity, there are frames of reference (in practice, coordinate systems) which are preferred, the
so-called intertial frames. These frames should be thought of as the “non-accelerated” frames, and
two inertial frames travel at “constant velocity” relative to each other. It is of interest to relate
measurements made with respect to different intertial frames. Let us consider the classical and
the special relativistic perspective separately.
The classical perspective. In the classical perspective, the transformation laws are obtained
by demanding that time is absolute. The relation between two intertial frames is then specified
by fixing the relative velocity, an initial translation, and a rotation. More specifically, given two
intertial frames F and F 0 , there are t0 ∈ R, v, x0 ∈ R3 and A ∈ SO(3) such that if (t, x) ∈ R4 are
the time and space coordinates of an event with respect to the intertial frame F and (t0 , x0 ) ∈ R4
are the coordinates of the same event with respect to the inertial frame F 0 , then

t0 =t + t0 , (2.1)
x0 =Ax + vt + x0 . (2.2)

The special relativistic perspective. The classical laws of physics transform well under changes
of coordinates of the form (2.1)–(2.2). However, it turns out that Maxwell’s equations do not.
This led Einstein to use a different starting point, namely that the speed of light is the same in all
intertial frames. One consequence of this assumption is that time is no longer absolute. Moreover,
if one wishes to compute the associated changes of coordinates when going from one intertial
frame to another, they are different from (2.1)–(2.2). The group of transformations (taking the
coordinates of one intertial frame to the coordinates of another frame) that arise when taking
this perspective is called the group of Lorentz transformations. The main point of introducing
Minkowski space is that the group of isometries of Minkowski space are exactly the group of
Lorentz transformations.
14 CHAPTER 2. SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
Chapter 3

The Levi-Civita connection,

parallel translation and geodesics

Einstein’s equations of general relativity relate the curvature of a spacetime with the matter
content of the spacetime. In order to understand this equation, it is therefore important to
understand the notion of curvature. This subject has a rich history, and here we only give a quite
formal and brief introduction to it. One way to define curvature is to examine how a vector is
changed when parallel translating it along a closed curve in the manifold. In order for this to
make sense, it is of course necessary to assign a meaning to the notion of “parallel translation”. In
the case of Euclidean space, the notion is perhaps intuitively clear; we simply fix the components
of the vector with respect to the standard coordinate frame and then change the base point.
Transporting a vector in Euclidean space (along a closed curve) in this way yields the identity
map; one returns to the vector one started with. This is one way to express that the curvature of
Euclidean space vanishes. Using a rather intuitive notion of parallel translation on the 2-sphere,
one can convince oneself that the same is not true of the 2-sphere.
In order to proceed to a formal development of the subject, it is necessary to clarify what is meant
by parallel translation. One natural way to proceed is to define an “infinitesimal” version of this
notion. This leads to the definition of a so-called connection.

3.1 The Levi-Civita connection

In the end we wish to define the notion of a Levi-Civita connection, but we begin by defining what
a connection is in general.
Definition 44. Let M be a smooth manifold. A map ∇ : X(M ) × X(M ) → X(M ) is called a
connection if

• ∇X Y is linear over C ∞ (M ) in X,
• ∇X Y is linear over R in X,
• ∇X (f Y ) = X(f )Y + f ∇X Y for all X, Y ∈ X(M ) and all f ∈ C ∞ (M ).

The expression ∇X Y is referred to as the covariant derivative of Y with respect to X for the
connection ∇.

Note that the first condition of Definition 44 means that

∇f1 X1 +f2 X2 Y = f1 ∇X1 Y + f2 ∇X2 Y

15
16 CHAPTER 3. LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION

for all fi ∈ C ∞ (M ), Xi , Y ∈ X(M ), i = 1, 2. The second condition of Definition 44 means that

∇X (a1 Y1 + a2 Y2 ) = a1 ∇X Y1 + a2 ∇X Y2

for all ai ∈ R, X, Yi ∈ X(M ), i = 1, 2. On Rn there is a natural connection.

Definition 45. Let (xi ), i = 1, . . . , n, be the standard coordinates on Rn . Let X, Y ∈ X(Rn ) and
define
∂
∇X Y = X(Y i ) i ,
∂x
where
∂
Y = Y i i.
∂x
Then ∇ is referred to as the standard connection on Rn .
Exercise 46. Prove that the standard connection on Rn is a connection in the sense of Defini-
tion 44.

Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold. Our next goal is to argue that there is preferred
connection, given the metric g. However, in order to single out a preferred connection, we have to
impose additional conditions. One such condition would be to require that

Xg(Y, Z) = g(∇X Y, Z) + g(Y, ∇X Z) (3.1)

for all X, Y, Z ∈ X(M ). In what follows, it is going to be a bit cumbersome to use the notation
g(X, Y ). We therefore define h·, ·i by

hX, Y i = g(X, Y );

we shall use this notation both for vectorfields and for individual vectors. With this notation,
(3.1) can be written
XhY, Zi = h∇X Y, Zi + hY, ∇X Zi. (3.2)
A connection satisfying this requirement is said to be metric. However, it turns out that the
condition (3.2) does not determine a unique connection. In fact, we are free to add further
conditions. One such condition would be to impose that ∇X Y − ∇Y X can be expressed in terms
of only X and Y , without any reference to the connection. Since ∇X Y − ∇Y X is antisymmetric,
one such condition would be to require that

∇X Y − ∇Y X = [X, Y ] (3.3)

for all X, Y ∈ X(M ). A connection satisfying this criterion is said to be torsion free. Remarkably,
it turns out that conditions (3.2) and (3.3) uniquely determine a connection, referred to as the
Levi-Civita connection.
Theorem 47. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold. Then there is a unique connection ∇
satisfying (3.2) and (3.3) for all X, Y, Z ∈ X(M ). It is called the Levi-Civita connection of (M, g).
Moreover, it is characterized by the Koszul formula:

2h∇X Y, Zi =XhY, Zi + Y hZ, Xi − ZhX, Y i − hX, [Y, Z]i + hY, [Z, X]i + hZ, [X, Y ]i. (3.4)

Proof. Assume that ∇ is a connection satisfying (3.2) and (3.3) for all X, Y, Z ∈ X(M ). Compute

h∇X Y, Zi =XhY, Zi − hY, ∇X Zi = XhY, Zi − hY, [X, Z]i − hY, ∇Z Xi

=XhY, Zi − hY, [X, Z]i − ZhY, Xi + h∇Z Y, Xi
=XhY, Zi − hY, [X, Z]i − ZhY, Xi + h[Z, Y ], Xi + h∇Y Z, Xi
=XhY, Zi − ZhY, Xi − hX, [Y, Z]i + hY, [Z, X]i + Y hZ, Xi − hZ, ∇Y Xi
=XhY, Zi + Y hZ, Xi − ZhY, Xi − hX, [Y, Z]i + hY, [Z, X]i − hZ, [Y, X]i − hZ, ∇X Y i,
3.1. THE LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION 17

where we have applied (3.2) and (3.3). In the fourth and fifth steps, we also rearranged the terms
and used the antisymmetry of the Lie bracket. Note that this equation implies that (3.4) holds.
This leads to the uniqueness of the Levi-Civita connection. The reason for this is the following.
Assume that ∇ and ∇ ˆ both satisfy (3.2) and (3.3). Then, due to the Koszul formula,

ˆ X Y, Zi = 0
h∇X Y − ∇

for all X, Y, Z ∈ X(M ). Due to Lemma 31, this implies that

ˆ XY
∇X Y = ∇

for all X, Y ∈ X(M ). In other words, there is at most one connection satisfying the conditions
(3.2) and (3.3). Given X, Y ∈ X(M ), let θX,Y be defined by the condition that 2θX,Y (Z) is given
by the right hand side of (3.4). It can then be demonstrated that θX,Y is linear over C ∞ (M ); in
other words,
θX,Y (f1 Z1 + f2 Z2 ) = f1 θX,Y (Z1 ) + f2 θX,Y (Z2 )
for all X, Y, Zi ∈ X(M ), fi ∈ C ∞ (M ), i = 1, 2 (we leave it as an exercise to verify that this is
true). Due to the tensor characterization lemma, [2, Lemma 12.24, p. 318], it thus follows that
θX,Y is a one-form. By appealing to Lemma 31, we conclude that there is a smooth vectorfield
]
θX,Y such that
]
hθX,Y , Zi = θX,Y (Z),
where the right hand side is given by the right hand side of (3.4). We define ∇X Y by
]
∇X Y = θX,Y .

Then ∇ is a function from X(M ) × X(M ) to X(M ). However, it is not obvious that it satisfies the
conditions of Definition 44. Moreover, it is not obvious that it satisfies (3.2) and (3.3). In other
words, there are five conditions we need to verify. Let us verify the first condition in the definition
of a connection. Note, to this end, that 2h∇f X Y, Zi is given by the right hand side of (3.4), with
X replaced by f X. However, a straightforward calculation shows that if you replace X by f X in
(3.4), then you obtain f times the right hand side of (3.4). In other words,

h∇f X Y, Zi = hf ∇X Y, Zi.

Due to Lemma 31, it follows that ∇f X Y = f ∇X Y . We leave it as an exercise to prove that

∇X Y is linear in X and Y over R, and conclude that the first two conditions of Definition 44 are
satisfied. To prove that the third condition holds, compute

2h∇X (f Y ), Zi =Xhf Y, Zi + f Y hZ, Xi − ZhX, f Y i − hX, [f Y, Z]i + hf Y, [Z, X]i + hZ, [X, f Y ]i
=X(f )hY, Zi + f XhY, Zi + f Y hZ, Xi − Z(f )hX, Y i − f ZhX, Y i
+ Z(f )hX, Y i − f hX, [Y, Z]i + f hY, [Z, X]i + X(f )hZ, Y i + f hZ, [X, Y ]i
=2f h∇X Y, Zi + 2hX(f )Y, Zi = 2hf ∇X Y + X(f )Y, Zi.

Appealing to Lemma 31 yields

∇X (f Y ) = f ∇X Y + X(f )Y.

Thus the third condition of Definition 44 is satisfied. We leave it to the reader to verify that (3.2)
and (3.3) are satisfied.

Exercise 48. Prove that the connection ∇ constructed in the proof of Theorem 47 satisfies the
conditions (3.2) and (3.3) for all X, Y, Z ∈ X(M ).
18 CHAPTER 3. LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION

Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and ∇ be the associated Levi-Civita connection. It is

of interest to express ∇ with respect to local coordinates (xi ). Introduce, to this end, the notation
Γkij by
∇∂i ∂j = Γkij ∂k ,
where we use the short hand notation
∂
∂i = .
∂xi
The smooth functions Γkij , defined on the domain of the coordinates, are called the Christoffel
symbols. Using the notation gij = g(∂i , ∂j ), let us compute
1
glk Γkij = h∂l , Γkij ∂k i = h∇∂i ∂j , ∂l i = (∂i gjl + ∂j gil − ∂l gij ),
2
where we have used the Koszul formula, (3.4), in the last step. Multiplying this equality with g ml
and summing over l yields
1 ml
Γm
ij = g (∂i gjl + ∂j gil − ∂l gij ). (3.5)
2
Note that Γm m i i
ij = Γji . If X = X ∂i and Y = Y ∂i are vectorfields, we obtain

∇X Y =∇X (Y j ∂j ) = X(Y j )∂j + Y j ∇X ∂j = X(Y j )∂j + Y j X i ∇∂i ∂j

=X(Y j )∂j + Y j X i Γkij ∂k .

Thus
∇X Y = X(Y k ) + Γkij X i Y j ∂k .
 

When defining parallel transport, we shall use the following consequence of this formula.
Lemma 49. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and ∇ be the associated Levi-Civita
connection. Let v ∈ Tp M for some p ∈ M , and Y ∈ X(M ). Let Xi ∈ X(M ), i = 1, 2, be such that
Xi,p = v. Then
(∇X1 Y )p = (∇X2 Y )p .

This lemma justifies defining ∇v Y in the following way.

Definition 50. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and ∇ be the associated Levi-Civita
connection. Let v ∈ Tp M for some p ∈ M , and Y ∈ X(M ). Given any vectorfield X ∈ X(M ) such
that Xp = v, define ∇v Y by
∇v Y = (∇X Y )p .

3.2 Parallel translation

At the beginning of the present chapter, we justified the introduction of the notion of a connection
by the (vague) statement that it would constitute an “infinitesimal” version of a notion of parallel
translation. In the present section, we wish to justify this statement by using the Levi-Civita
connection to define parallel translation. To begin with, let us introduce some terminology.
Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold, I ⊆ R be an open interval and γ : I → M be a smooth
curve. Then a smooth map from I to the tangent bundle of M , say X, is said to be an element of
X(γ) if the base point of X(t) is γ(t). If X ∈ X(M ), we let Xγ denote the element of X(γ) which
assigns the vector Xγ(t) to the number t ∈ I.
Proposition 51. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold, I ⊆ R be an open interval and
γ : I → M be a smooth curve. Then there is a unique function taking X ∈ X(γ) to
∇X
X0 = ∈ X(γ),
dt
3.2. PARALLEL TRANSLATION 19

satisfying the following properties:

(a1 X1 + a2 X2 )0 =a1 X10 + a2 X20 , (3.6)

(f X)0 =f 0 X + f X 0 , (3.7)
0
(Yγ ) (t) =∇γ(t) Y, (3.8)

for all X, Xi ∈ X(γ), ai ∈ R, f ∈ C ∞ (I) and Y ∈ X(M ), i = 1, 2. Moreover, this map has the
property that
d
hX1 , X2 i = hX10 , X2 i + hX1 , X20 i. (3.9)
dt
Remark 52. How to interpret the expression ∇γ(t) Y appearing in (3.8) is explained in Lemma 49
and Definition 50.

Proof. Let us begin by proving uniqueness. Let X ∈ X(γ). Then we can write X as

X(t) = X i (t)∂i |γ(t) , (3.10)

where the X i are smooth functions on X −1 (U ) (where U is the set on which the coordinates
(xi ) are defined). Assume now that we have derivative operator satisfying (3.6)–(3.8). Applying
(3.6)–(3.8) to (3.10) yields

dX i dX i
X 0 (t) = (t)∂i |γ(t) + X i (t)(∂i |γ )0 (t) = (t)∂i |γ(t) + X i (t)∇γ 0 (t) ∂i . (3.11)
dt dt
Since the right hand side only depends on the Levi-Civita connection, we conclude that uniqueness
holds.
In order to prove existence, we can define X 0 (t) by (3.11) for t ∈ X −1 (U ). It can then be verified
that the corresponding derivative operator satisfies the conditions (3.6)–(3.9); we leave this as an
exercise. Due to uniqueness, these coordinate representations can be patched together to produce
an element X 0 ∈ X(γ).
Exercise 53. Prove that the derivative operator defined by the formula (3.11) has the properties
(3.6)–(3.9).

It is of interest to write down a formula for X 0 in local coordinates. Let (xi ) be local coordinates,
γ i = xi ◦ γ and X i be defined by (3.10). Then, since

dγ i
γ 0 (t) = (t)∂i |γ(t) ,
dt
(3.11) implies

dX i dγ j
X 0 (t) = (t)∂i |γ(t) + X i (t) (t)Γkji [γ(t)]∂k |γ(t)
dt dt
(3.12)
dX k dγ j
 
= (t) + X i (t) (t)Γkji [γ(t)] ∂k |γ(t) .
dt dt
Given the derivative operator of Proposition 51, we are now in a position to assign a meaning to
the expression parallel translation used in the introduction to the present chapter.
Definition 54. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold, I ⊆ R be an open interval and
γ : I → M be a smooth curve. Then X ∈ X(γ) is said to be parallel along γ if and only if X 0 = 0.

Note that, in local coordinates, the equation X 0 = 0 is a linear equation for the components of
X; cf. (3.12). For this reason, we have the following proposition (cf. also the arguments used to
prove the existence of integral curves of vectorfields).
20 CHAPTER 3. LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION

Proposition 55. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold, I ⊆ R be an open interval and

γ : I → M be a smooth curve. If t0 ∈ I and ξ ∈ Tγ(t0 ) M , then there is a unique X ∈ X(γ) such
that X 0 = 0 and X(t0 ) = ξ.

Exercise 56. Prove Proposition 55.

Due to Proposition 55 we are in a position to define parallel translation along a curve. Given
assumptions as in the statement of Proposition 55, let t0 , t1 ∈ I. Then there is a map

P : Tγ(t0 ) → Tγ(t1 )

defined as follows. Given ξ ∈ Tγ(t0 ) M , let X ∈ X(γ) be such that X 0 = 0 and X(t0 ) = ξ. Define
P (ξ) = X(t1 ). Here P depends (only) on γ, t0 and t1 . In some situations, it may be useful to
indicate this dependence, but if these objects are clear from the context, it is convenient to simply
write P . The map P is called parallel translation along γ from γ(t0 ) to γ(t1 ). Parallel translation
has the following property.

Proposition 57. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold, I ⊆ R be an open interval and

γ : I → M be a smooth curve. Finally, let t0 , t1 ∈ I and pi = γ(ti ), i = 0, 1. Then parallel
translation along γ from γ(t0 ) to γ(t1 ) is a linear isometry from Tp0 M to Tp1 M .

Proof. We leave it to the reader to prove that parallel translation is a vector space isomorphism. In
order to prove that it is an isometry, let v, w ∈ Tp0 M and V, W ∈ X(γ) be such that V 0 = W 0 = 0,
V (t0 ) = v and W (t0 ) = w. Then P (v) = V (t1 ) and P (w) = W (t1 ). Compute
Z t1
d
hP (v), P (w)i =hV (t1 ), W (t1 )i = hV (t0 ), W (t0 )i + hV, W idt
t0 dt
Z t1
=hv, wi + (hV 0 , W i + hV, W 0 i) dt = hv, wi,
t0

where we have used property (3.9) of the derivative operator 0 , as well as the fact that V 0 = W 0 = 0.
The proposition follows.

Exercise 58. Prove that parallel translation is a vector space isomorphism.

Let us analyze what parallel translation means in the case of Euclidean space and Minkowski
space. Let I and γ be as in the statement of Proposition 55, where (M, g) is either Euclidean
space or Minkowski space. Note that the Christoffel symbols of gE and gM vanish with respect to
standard coordinates on Rn and Rn+1 respectively. An element X ∈ X(γ) is therefore parallel if
and only if the components of X with respect to the standard coordinate vectorfields are constant
(just as we stated in the introduction). In particular, the result of the parallel translation does
not depend on the curve. It is of importance to note that, even though this is true in the case of
Euclidean space and Minkowski space, it is not true in general.

3.3 Geodesics
A notion which is extremely important both in Riemannian geometry and in Lorentz geometry is
that of a geodesic. In Riemannian geometry, geodesics are locally length minimizing curves. In
the case of general relativity (Lorentz geometry), geodesics are related to the trajectories of freely
falling test particles, as well as the trajectories of light.

Definition 59. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold, I ⊆ R be an open interval and

γ : I → M be a smooth curve. Then γ is said to be a geodesic if γ 00 = 0; in other words, if
γ 0 ∈ X(γ) is parallel.
3.3. GEODESICS 21

Keeping (3.12) in mind, geodesics are curves which with respect to local coordinates (xi ) satisfy
the equation
γ̈ k + Γkij ◦ γ γ̇ i γ̇ j = 0,


(3.13)
where we use the notation
dγ i d2 γ i
γ i = xi ◦ γ, γ̇ i = , γ̈ i = .
dt dt2
It is important to note that, even though (3.13) is an ODE, it is (in contrast to the equation
X 0 = 0 for a fixed curve γ) a non-linear ODE. Due to the fact that (3.13) is an autonomous ODE
for γ and the fact that the Christoffel symbols are smooth functions, it is clear that geodesics are
smooth curves. Due to local existence and uniqueness results for ODE’s, we have the following
proposition.
Proposition 60. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold, p ∈ M and v ∈ Tp M . Then there
is a unique geodesic γ : I → M with the properties that

• I ⊆ R is an open interval such that 0 ∈ I,

• γ 0 (0) = v,
• I is maximal in the sense that if α : J → M is a geodesic (with J an open interval, 0 ∈ J
and α0 (0) = v), then J ⊆ I and α = γ|J .

Proof. Since the uniqueness is clear from the definition, let us focus on existence.
Local existence and uniqueness. To begin with, note that there is an open interval I0 contain-
ing 0 and a unique geodesic β : I0 → M such that β 0 (0) = v; this is an immediate consequence of
applying standard results concerning ODE’s to the equation (3.13). In other words, local existence
and uniqueness holds.
Global uniqueness. In order to proceed, we need to prove global uniqueness. In other words,
we need to prove that if Ii , i = 0, 1, are open intervals containing 0 and βi : Ii → M are geodesics
such that βi0 (0) = v, then β0 = β1 on I0 ∩ I1 . In order to prove this statement, let A be the set of
t ∈ I0 ∩ I1 such that β00 (t) = β10 (t). Note that if t ∈ A, then β0 (t) = π ◦ β00 (t) = π ◦ β10 (t) = β1 (t),
where π : T M → M is the projection taking a tangent vector to its base point. In other words,
if we can prove that A = I0 ∩ I1 , it then follows that β0 = β1 on I0 ∩ I1 . Since 0 ∈ A, it is clear
that A is non-empty. Due to local uniqueness, A is open. In order to prove that A is closed, let
t1 ∈ I0 ∩ I1 belong to the closure of A. Then there is a sequence sj ∈ A such that sj → t1 . Since
βi0 : Ii → T M are smooth maps, it is clear that
β10 (t1 ) = lim β10 (sj ) = lim β00 (sj ) = β00 (t1 ).
j→∞ j→∞

Thus t1 ∈ A. Summing up, A is an open, closed and non-empty subset of I0 ∩I1 . Thus A = I0 ∩I1 .
In other words, global uniqueness holds.
Existence. Let Ia , a ∈ A, be the collection of open intervals Ia ⊆ R such that

• 0 ∈ Ia ,
• there is a geodesic γa : Ia → M such that γa0 (0) = v.

Due to local existence, we know that this collection of intervals is non-empty. Define
[
I= Ia .
a∈A

Then I ⊆ R is an open interval containing 0. Moreover, due to global uniqueness, we can define
a geodesic γ : I → M such that γ 0 (0) = v; simply let γ(t) = γa (t) for t ∈ Ia . Finally, it is clear,
by definition, that I is maximal.
22 CHAPTER 3. LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION

The geodesic constructed in Proposition 60 is called the maximal geodesic with initial data given
by v ∈ Tp M .
Exercise 61. Prove that the maximal geodesics in Euclidean space and in Minkowski space are
the straight lines.

Let γ be a geodesic. Then

d 0 0
hγ , γ i = hγ 00 , γ 0 i + hγ 0 , γ 00 i = 0.
dt
In other words, hγ 0 , γ 0 i is constant so that the following definition makes sense.
Definition 62. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and γ be a geodesic on (M, g). Then
γ is said to be spacelike if hγ 0 , γ 0 i > 0 or γ 0 = 0; γ is said to be timelike if hγ 0 , γ 0 i < 0; and γ is
said to be lightlike or null if hγ 0 , γ 0 i = 0, γ 0 6= 0. A geodesic which is either timelike or null is said
to be causal
Remark 63. In a spacetime, we can also speak of future oriented timelike, null and causal curves.

In general relativity, timelike geodesics are interpreted as the trajectories of freely falling test
particles and null geodesics are interpreted as the trajectories of light. In particular, in Lorentz
geometry, we can think of the timelike geodesics as freely falling observers. Moreover, if γ : I → M
is a future oriented timelike geodesic in a spacetime and t0 < t1 are elements of I, then
Z t1
1/2
(−hγ 0 (t), γ 0 (t)i) dt
t0

is the proper time between t0 and t1 as measured by the observer γ. Since the integrand is constant,
it is clear that if I = (t− , t+ ) and t+ < ∞, then the amount of proper time the observer can measure
to the future is finite (there is an analogous statement concerning the past if t− > −∞). This can
be thought of as saying that the observer leaves the spacetime in finite proper time. One way to
interpret this is that there is a singularity in the spacetime. It is therefore of interest to analyze
under what circumstances I 6= R. To begin with, let us introduce the following terminology.
Definition 64. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and γ : I → M be a maximal geodesic
in (M, g). Then γ is said to be a complete geodesic if I = R. A semi-Riemannian manifold, all of
whose maximal geodesics are complete is said to be complete.

Euclidean space and Minkowski space are both examples of complete semi-Riemannian manifolds.
On the other hand, removing one single point from Euclidean space or Minkowski space yields
an incomplete semi-Riemannian manifold. In other words, the notion of completeness is very
sensitive. Moreover, it is clear that in order to interpret the presence of an incomplete causal
geodesic as the existence of a singularity (as is sometimes done), it is necessary to ensure that
the spacetime under consideration is maximal in some natural sense. Nevertheless, trying to sort
out conditions ensuring that a spacetime (which is maximal in some natural sense) is causally
geodesically incomplete is a fundamental problem. Due to the work of Hawking and Penrose,
spacetimes are causally geodesically incomplete under quite general circumstances. The relevant
results, which are known under the name of “the singularity theorems”, are discussed, e.g., in [1,
Chapter 14].

3.4 Variational characterization of geodesics

Another perspective on geodesics is obtained by considering the variation of the length of curves
that are close to a fixed curve. To be more precise, let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold,
t0 < t1 and  > 0 be real numbers, and
ν : [t0 , t1 ] × (−, ) → M.
3.4. VARIATIONAL CHARACTERIZATION OF GEODESICS 23

The function ν should be thought of as a variation of the curve γ(t) = ν(t, 0). Let
Z t1
L(s) = |h∂t ν(t, s), ∂t ν(t, s)i|1/2 dt.
t0

A natural question to ask is: what are the curves γ such that for every variation ν (as above,
with an appropriate degree of regularity and fixing the endpoints t0 and t1 ), L0 (0) = 0? Roughly
speaking, it turns out to be possible to characterize geodesics as the curves for which L0 (0) for all
such variations. In particular, geodesics in Riemannian geometry are the locally length minimizing
curves.
Here we shall not pursue this perspective further, but rather refer the interested reader to, e.g.,
[1, Chapter 10].
24 CHAPTER 3. LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION
Chapter 4

Curvature

The notion of curvature arose over a long period of time. Some of the history can be found in [3].
Here we proceed in a more formal way. As indicated at the beginning of the previous chapter, one
way to define curvature is through parallel translation along a closed curve. Here we define the
curvature tensor via an “infinitesimal” version of this idea.

4.1 The curvature tensor

Proposition 65. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and ∇ denote the associated Levi-
Civita connection. Then the function R : X(M )3 → X defined by
RXY Z = ∇X ∇Y Z − ∇Y ∇X Z − ∇[X,Y ] Z (4.1)
is linear over C ∞ (M ). In particular, it can thus be interpreted as a tensor field, and it is referred
to as the Riemannian curvature tensor of (M, g).
Remark 66. Even though the notation R(X, Y, Z) may seem more reasonable, the convention
(4.1) is the one commonly used. Since R does not take its values in C ∞ (M ), the statement that
it is a tensor field requires some justification. The reason for the terminology is that we can easily
consider R to be a map from X(M )3 × X∗ (M ) → C ∞ (M ) according to
(X, Y, Z, η) 7→ η(RXY Z).
That the corresponding map is linear over the functions in η is obvious. If it is linear over the
functions in the other arguments, the tensor characterization lemma [2, Lemma 12.24, p. 318] thus
yields the conclusion that we can think of R as of a tensor field.

Proof. That R is linear over the real numbers is clear. The only thing we need to prove is thus
that
R(f X)Y Z =f RXY Z, (4.2)
RX(f Y ) Z =f RXY Z, (4.3)
RXY (f Z) =f RXY Z. (4.4)
We prove one of these equalities and leave the other two as exercises. Compute
RXY (f Z) =∇X [f ∇Y Z + Y (f )Z] − ∇Y [X(f )Z + f ∇X Z] − [X, Y ](f )Z − f ∇[X,Y ] Z
=X(f )∇Y Z + XY (f )Z + Y (f )∇X Z + f ∇X ∇Y Z − Y X(f )Z − X(f )∇Y Z
− Y (f )∇X Z − f ∇Y ∇X Z − [X, Y ](f )Z − f ∇[X,Y ] Z
=f RXY Z.

25
26 CHAPTER 4. CURVATURE

Due to Exercise 67, the proposition follows.

Exercise 67. Prove (4.2) and (4.3).

By an argument similar to the proof of the tensor characterization lemma, cf. [2, pp. 318–319],
Proposition 65 implies that it is possible to make sense of Rxy z for x, y, z ∈ Tp M . In fact, choosing
any vector fields X, Y, Z ∈ X(M ) such that Xp = x, Yp = y and Zp = z, we can define Rxy z by

Rxy z = (RXY Z)(p);

the right hand side is independent of the choice of vectorfields X, Y, Z satisfying Xp = x, Yp = y

and Zp = z. Moreover, we can think of Rxy as a linear map from Tp M to Tp M . The curvature
tensor has several symmetries.

Proposition 68. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and x, y, z, v, w ∈ Tp M , where

p ∈ M . Then

Rxy = − Ryx , (4.5)

hRxy v, wi = − hv, Rxy wi, (4.6)
Rxy z + Ryz x + Rzx y =0, (4.7)
hRxy v, wi =hRvw x, yi. (4.8)

Proof. Choose vectorfields X, Y, Z, V, W so that Xp = x etc. Without loss of generality, we may

assume the Lie brackets of any pairs of vectorfields in {X, Y, Z, V, W } to vanish; simply choose
these vectorfields to have constant coefficients relative to coordinate vectorfields (it is sufficient to
carry out the computation locally).
That (4.5) holds is an immediate consequence of the definition. Note that (4.6) is equivalent to

hRxy z, zi = 0 (4.9)

for all x, y, z ∈ Tp M . In order to prove (4.9), compute (using (3.2) and the fact that [X, Y ] = 0)

hRXY Z, Zi =h∇X ∇Y Z − ∇Y ∇X Z, Zi
=Xh∇Y Z, Zi − h∇Y Z, ∇X Zi − Y h∇X Z, Zi + h∇X Z, ∇Y Zi
1 1 1
= XY hZ, Zi − Y XhZ, Zi = [X, Y ]hZ, Zi = 0.
2 2 2

Thus (4.6) holds. In order to prove (4.7), compute

RXY Z + RY Z X + RZX Y =∇X ∇Y Z − ∇Y ∇X Z + ∇Y ∇Z X − ∇Z ∇Y X

+ ∇Z ∇ X Y − ∇ X ∇ Z Y
=∇X [Y, Z] + ∇Z [X, Y ] + ∇Y [Z, X] = 0.

In order to prove (4.8), note that

hRxy v + Ryv x + Rvx y, wi = 0

due to (4.7). Adding up the four cyclic permutations of this equation and using (4.5) and (4.6)
yields (4.8). We leave the details to the reader.

Exercise 69. Prove (4.8).

4.2. CALCULATING THE CURVATURE TENSOR 27

4.2 Calculating the curvature tensor

It is of interest to derive a formula for the curvature in terms of a frame. Let {ei } be a local frame.
Then we define the associated connection coefficients Γijk by

∇ej ek = Γijk ei .

In case ei = ∂i , the connection coefficients are the Christoffel symbols given by (3.5). However,
for a general frame, the relation Γkij = Γkji does typically not hold. This is due to the fact that
the Lie bracket [ei , ej ] typically does not vanish. Note that the information concerning the Lie
k
brackets is contained in the functions γij defined by
k
[ei , ej ] = γij ek .

Let us compute

Rei ej ek =∇ei ∇ej ek − ∇ej ∇ei ek − ∇[ei ,ej ] ek

=∇ei (Γljk el ) − ∇ej (Γlik el ) − γij
l
∇el e k
(4.10)
=ei (Γljk )el + Γljk ∇ei el − ej (Γlik )el − Γlik ∇ej el − γij
l m
Γlk em
=ei (Γm l m m l m l m
jk )em + Γjk Γil em − ej (Γik )em − Γik Γjl em − γij Γlk em .

This equality can be written

Rei ej ek = −Rijkm em , (4.11)
where
Rijkm = ej (Γm m l m l m l m
ik ) − ei (Γjk ) + Γik Γjl − Γjk Γil + γij Γlk . (4.12)
The motivation for including a minus sign in (4.11) is perhaps not so clear. There are several
different conventions, but we have included the minus sign to obtain consistency with some of the
standard references. The symbol Rijkm should be thought of as the components of the curvature
tensor (which is a (1, 3) tensor field) with respect to the frame {ei }. In case the frame is given by
k
ei = ∂i , the γij ’s vanish, and we obtain the formula

Rijkm = ∂j Γm m l m l m
ik − ∂i Γjk + Γik Γjl − Γjk Γil .

Moreover, in this case, the Γkij ’s are given by (3.5). With respect to the standard coordinates,
the Christoffel symbols of the Euclidean metric and the Minkowski metric vanish. In particular,
the associated curvature tensors thus vanish. Moreover, this property (essentially) characterizes
Euclidean space and Minkowski space. To prove this statement is, however, non-trivial.
The general strategy for computing the components of the curvature tensor is the following. First,
choose a suitable local frame. Which frame is most appropriate depends on the context. Sometimes
it is convenient to use a coordinate frame, but sometimes it is easier to carry out the computations
with respect to an orthonormal frame. Once a choice of frame has been made, one first calculates
k
the functions γij determined by the Lie bracket. Then, one calculates the coefficients Γkij using
the Koszul formula, (3.4). After this has been done, the components of the curvature can be
calculated using (4.12). Needless to say, this is a cumbersome process in most cases.

4.3 The Ricci tensor and scalar curvature

Since the curvature tensor is a (1, 3) tensor field, we can contract two of the indices in order to
obtain a covariant 2-tensor field. In fact, we define the Ricci tensor to be the covariant 2-tensor
field whose components are given by
Rik = Rijkj . (4.13)
28 CHAPTER 4. CURVATURE

In terms of local coordinates, the components of the Ricci tensor are given by

Rik = ∂j Γjik − ∂i Γjjk + Γlik Γjjl − Γljk Γjil .

Again, the Ricci tensor of Euclidean space and Minkowski space vanish. In what follows, we
denote the tensor field whose components are given by (4.13) by Ric. In other words, if Rijkm are
the components of the curvature tensor relative to a frame {ei }, then

Ric(ei , ek ) = Rijkj .

The Ricci tensor is an extremely important object in semi-Riemannian geometry in general, and
in general relativity in particular. It is of interest to derive alternate formulae for the Ricci tensor.

Lemma 70. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and {ei } be an orthonormal frame such
that hei , ei i = i (no summation on i). Then
X
Ric(X, Y ) = j hRej X Y, ej i. (4.14)
j

Proof. Note that with respect to a local frame {ei },

hRei ej ek , el i = −Rijkm hem , el i = −Rijkm gml , (4.15)

where all the components are calculated with respect to the frame {ei }. Assume now that the
frame is orthonormal so that hei , ej i = 0 if i 6= j and hei , ei i = i (no summation on i), where
i = ±1. Letting l = j in (4.15) then yields

−j Rijkj = hRei ej ek , ej i

(no summation on j). Thus

Rijkj = −j hRei ej ek , ej i = j hRej ei ek , ej i

(no summation on j), where we have appealed to (4.5). Summing over j now yields
X
Ric(ei , ek ) = j hRej ei ek , ej i.
j

If X = X i ei and Y = Y i ei are elements of X(M ), we then obtain

X X
Ric(X, Y ) = X i Y k Ric(ei , ek ) = X i Y k j hRej ei ek , ej i = j hRej X Y, ej i.
j j

The lemma follows.

It is of interest to note that, as a consequence of (4.14), (4.5), (4.6) and (4.8),

X X X
Ric(X, Y ) = j hRej X Y, ej i = j hRY ej ej , Xi = j hRej Y X, ej i = Ric(Y, X).
j j j

In other words, the Ricci tensor is a symmetric covariant 2-tensor field.

Finally, we define the scalar curvature S of a semi-Riemannian manifold by the formula

S = g ij Rij .
4.4. THE DIVERGENCE, THE GRADIENT AND THE LAPLACIAN 29

4.4 The divergence, the gradient and the Laplacian

The divergence of a vector field. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold with associated
Levi-Civita connection ∇. If X ∈ X(M ), we can think of ∇X as (1, 1)-tensor field according to

(Y, η) 7→ η(∇Y X);

note that this map is bilinear over the smooth functions and thus defines a (1, 1)-tensor field due to
the tensor characterization lemma. The components of this tensor field with respect to coordinates
would in physics notation be written ∇i X j . They are given by

∇i X j =dxj (∇∂i X) = dxj [∇∂i (X k ∂k )] = dxj [(∂i X k )∂k + X k ∇∂i ∂k ]

=dxj [(∂i X k )∂k + X k Γlik ∂l ] = ∂i X j + Γjik X k .

Contracting the components of this tensor field yields a smooth function. We define the divergence
of X ∈ X(M ), written divX, to be the function which in local coordinates is given by

divX = ∇i X i = ∂i X i + Γiik X k .

In Euclidean space, this gives the familiar formula, since Γkij = 0.

The gradient of a function. If f ∈ C ∞ (M ), then df ∈ X∗ (M ). Applying the isomorphism ] to
df , we thus obtain a vectorfield referred to as the gradient of f :

gradf = (df )] .

In local coordinates,
gradf = g ij (∂i f )∂j .
The Laplacian of a function. Finally, taking the divergence of the gradient yields the Laplacian

∆f = div(gradf ).
In the case of Euclidean space, this definition yields the ordinary Laplacian. However, in the case
of Minkowski space, it yields the wave operator.

4.5 Computing the covariant derivative of tensor fields

So far, we have only applied the Levi-Civita connection to vectorfields. However, it is also possible
to apply it to tensor fields. To begin with, let us apply it to a one-form. To this end, let η ∈ X∗ (M )
and X, Y ∈ X(M ). Then we define

(∇X η)(Y ) = X[η(Y )] − η(∇X Y ). (4.16)

Exercise 71. Prove that (∇X η)(Y ) defined by (4.16) is linear over the smooth functions in
the argument Y (so that ∇X η is a one-form due to the tensor chracterization lemma). Prove,
moreover, that
∇X η = (∇X η ] )[ .

Note that ∇η can be thought of as a covariant 2-tensor field according to

(X, Y ) 7→ (∇X η)(Y ).

The components of this tensor field with respect to local coordinates is given by

(∇∂i η)(∂j ) = ∂i [η(∂j )] − η(∇∂i ∂j ) = ∂i ηj − η(Γkij ∂k ) = ∂i ηj − Γkij ηk ,

30 CHAPTER 4. CURVATURE

where Γkij are the Christoffel symbols associated with the coordinates (xi ). Physicists would write
this equation as
∇i ηj = ∂i ηj − ηk Γkij .
In order to generalize this to tensorfields, let T be a tensorfield of type (k, l). We can then think
of T as a map from X(M )∗ × · · · × X∗ (M ) × X(M ) × · · · × X(M ) (k copies of X(M )∗ and l copies
of X(M )) to C ∞ (M ) which is multilinear over the smooth functions. If η1 , . . . , ηk ∈ X∗ (M ) and
Y, X1 , . . . , Xl ∈ X(M ), then ∇X T is defined by the relation

(∇X T )(η1 , . . . , ηk , X1 , . . . , Xl )
=X[T (η1 , . . . , ηk , X1 , . . . , Xl )]
(4.17)
− T (∇X η1 , η2 , . . . , ηk , X1 , . . . , Xl ) − · · · − T (η1 , . . . , ηk−1 , ∇X ηk , X1 , . . . , Xl )
− T (η1 , . . . , ηk , ∇X X1 , X2 , . . . , Xl ) − · · · − T (η1 , . . . , ηk , X1 , . . . , Xl−1 , ∇X Xl ).

Exercise 72. Prove that (∇X T )(η1 , . . . , ηk , X1 , . . . , Xl ) defined by the formula (4.17) is linear
over the smooth functions in η1 , . . . , ηk , X1 , . . . , Xl . Due to the tensor characterization lemma,
this implies that ∇X T is a tensorfield of type (k, l).

It is of interest to calculate ∇g, where g is the metric.

Exercise 73. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and let ∇ be the associated Levi-Civita
connection. Prove that ∇g = 0.

4.5.1 Divergence of a covariant 2-tensor field

In the context of Einstein’s equations, it is of interest to calculate the divergence of symmetric
covariant 2-tensor fields. For that reason, we here wish to define the divergence and to derive a
convenient formula for calculating it.
Let T be a symmetric covariant 2-tensorfield. Then we can think if ∇T a covariant 3-tensor field
according to
(X, Y, Z) 7→ (∇X T )(Y, Z). (4.18)
The components of this tensorfield with respect to local coordinates (xi ) are given by

(∇∂i T )(∂j , ∂k ) =∂i Tjk − T (∇∂i ∂j , ∂k ) − T (∂j , ∇∂i ∂k )

=∂i Tjk − Γlij Tlk − Γlik Tjl .

Again, in physics notation, this equation would be written

∇i Tjk = ∂i Tjk − Γlij Tlk − Γlik Tjl .

We here follow this convention by denoting the components of the tensorfield defined by (4.18) by
∇i Tjk . We use this notation also in the case that the components are calculated with respect to
a frame as opposed to only coordinate frames. However, which frame we use should be clear from
the context. Note that ∇i Tjk = ∇i Tkj (this is a consequence of the fact that T is symmetric). We
define divT to be the one-form whose components are given by

(divT )k = g ij ∇i Tjk .

In physics notation, this equation would be written

(divT )k = ∇i Tik ;

first you raise the first index and then you contract with the second index.
4.6. AN EXAMPLE OF A CURVATURE CALCULATION 31

Say that {ei } is an orthonormal frame with i = hei , ei i. Then

X X
(divT )k = g ij ∇i Tjk = g ij ∇i Tjk = i ∇i Tik = i (∇ei T )(ei , ek ),
i i

where it is taken for granted that all the indices are calculated with respect to the frame {ei }.
Say that X = X i ei is a smooth vector field. Then
X X
(divT )(X) = X k (divT )(ek ) = X k (divT )k = X k i (∇ei T )(ei , ek ) = i (∇ei T )(ei , X).
i i

To conclude X
(divT )(X) = i (∇ei T )(ei , X).
i

4.6 An example of a curvature calculation

In the present section, we calculate the Ricci tensor of one specific metric; cf. (4.19) below. Our
motivation for doing so is that the calculations themselves illustrate the theory. However, the
particular metric we have chosen is such that n-dimensional hyperbolic space and the 2-sphere are
two special cases. Moreover, the Lorentz manifolds used by physicists nowadays usually have a
metric of the form (4.19).
The metric. Define the metric g by the formula
n
X
2
g = dt ⊗ dt + f (t) dxi ⊗ dxi (4.19)
i=1

on I × U , where I is an open interval and U is an open subset of Rn . Moreover, t is the coordinate

on the interval I and xi are the standard coordinates on Rn . Finally, f is a strictly positive smooth
function on I and  = ±1. If  = 1, the metric is Riemannian, and if  = −1, g is a Lorentz metric.
The orthonormal frame. The curvature calculations can be carried out in many different ways.
Here we shall use an orthonormal frame, denoted {eα }, α = 0, . . . , n, and defined by
1
e0 = ∂ t , ei = ∂i , (4.20)
f
where i = 1, . . . , n; we shall here use the convention that Greek indices range from 0 to n and that
Latin indices range from 1 to n.
The coefficients of the Lie bracket. Our goal here is to compute the curvature of the metric
λ
(4.19). The strategy is to first compute the γαβ , defined by the relation
λ
[eα , eβ ] = γαβ eλ . (4.21)

Then the idea is to use the Koszul formula (3.4) to calculate the connection coefficients, defined
by
∇eα eβ = Γλαβ eλ . (4.22)
λ λ λ
Since γαβ = −γβα , it is sufficient to compute γαβ for α < β. Compute

f˙
[e0 , ei ] = − ∂i = Hei ,
f2
where H is the function defined by
f˙
H=− .
f
32 CHAPTER 4. CURVATURE

α
Thus γ0i = 0 unless α = i and
i
γ0i = H.

Since [ei , ej ] = 0 for all i, j = 1, . . . , n, we have

α
γij =0

λ
for all α = 0, . . . , n. To conclude, the only γαβ ’s that do not vanish are

i i
γ0i = H, γi0 = −H, (4.23)

where i = 1, . . . , n and we do not sum over i.

4.6.1 Computing the connection coefficients

The next step is to compute the connection coefficients. Let us first derive a general formula for
the connection coefficients of an orthonormal frame.

Lemma 74. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and let {eα }, α = 0, . . . , n, be an or-
thonormal frame on an open subset U of M . Define the connection coefficients Γλαβ by the formula
λ
(4.22) and γαβ by (4.21). Then

1 β

Γλαβ = α
−λ α γβλ + λ β γλα λ
+ γαβ (4.24)
2
(no summation on any index), where α = g(eα , eα ).

Proof. Due to the Koszul formula, (3.4),

2h∇eα eβ , eµ i =eα heβ , eµ i + eβ heµ , eα i − eµ heα , eβ i

− heα , [eβ , eµ ]i + heβ , [eµ , eα ]i + heµ , [eα , eβ ]i
= − heα , [eβ , eµ ]i + heβ , [eµ , eα ]i + heµ , [eα , eβ ]i
ν ν ν
= − heα , γβµ eν i + heβ , γµα eν i + heµ , γαβ eν i
ν ν ν
= − γβµ gαν + γµα gβν + γαβ gµν ,

where we used the fact that the frame is orthonormal in the second step and gαβ = heα , eβ i. On
the other hand,
2h∇eα eβ , eµ i = 2hΓναβ eν , eµ i = 2Γναβ gµν .

Combining these two equations yields

1
Γναβ gµν = ν ν ν


−γβµ gαν + γµα gβν + γαβ gµν .
2

Multiplying this equation with g λµ and summing over ν yields

1
Γλαβ = ν
g λµ gαν + γµα
ν
g λµ gβν + γαβ
ν
g λµ gµν


−γβµ
2
1 α β λ

= −λ α γβλ + λ β γλα + γαβ
2
(no summation on any index), where we have used the fact that gαβ = α δαβ . The lemma
follows.
4.6. AN EXAMPLE OF A CURVATURE CALCULATION 33

Calculating the connection coefficients in the case of the metric (4.19). Let us now
return to the metric (4.19). Considering the formula (4.24), it is of interest to note the following.
µ
In all the terms on the right hand side, the indices in the γαβ ’s are simply permutations of the
λ µ
indices in Γαβ . In our particular setting, the only combination of indices in γαβ that (may) give a
non-zero result is if one of the indices is 0 and the other two are equal and belong to {1, . . . , n}.
Let us compute, using (4.24),
1
Γi0i = 0 i i


−γii + γi0 + γ0i = 0,
2
1
Γii0 = −γ0i
i 0 i i


+ γii + γi0 = −γ0i = −H,
2
1
Γ0ii = −γi0i i 0 i


+ γ0i + γii = γ0i = H.
2
To conclude, the only connection coefficients which are non-zero are

Γii0 = −H, Γ0ii = H (4.25)

(no summation on i).

4.6.2 Calculating the components of the Ricci tensor

Let us now turn to the problem of calculating the Ricci tensor. Again, it is useful to derive a
general expression for the the components of the Ricci tensor with respect to an orthonormal
frame.
Lemma 75. Let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold and let {eα }, α = 0, . . . , n, be an or-
thonormal frame on an open subset U of M . Define the connection coefficients Γλαβ by the formula
λ
(4.22) and γαβ by (4.21). Then

Ric(eµ , eν ) = eα (Γα λ α α λ α λ α
µν ) + Γµν Γαλ − eµ (Γαν ) − Γαν Γµλ − γαµ Γλν , (4.26)

where Einstein’s summation convention applies.

Proof. Due to (4.14), X

Ric(eµ , eν ) = α hReα eµ eν , eα i. (4.27)
α

On the other hand, (4.10) yields

hReα eµ eν , eα i =heα (Γβµν )eβ + Γλµν Γβαλ eβ − eµ (Γβαν )eβ − Γλαν Γβµλ eβ − γαµ
λ
Γβλν eβ , eα i
=α eα (Γα λ α α λ α λ α


µν ) + Γµν Γαλ − eµ (Γαν ) − Γαν Γµλ − γαµ Γλν

(no summation on α), where we have used the fact that heα , eβ i = α δαβ . Combining this obser-
vation with (4.27) yields (4.26).

The components of the Ricci tensor of the metric (4.19). Let us now compute the
components of the Ricci tensor of the metric (4.19). Since the Ricci tensor is symmetric, it is
sufficient to compute Ric(eµ , eν ) for µ ≤ ν. Before computing the individual components, let us
make the following observations. Since the Γα α
µν ’s only depend on t, eλ (Γµν ) = 0 unless λ = 0.
Keeping in mind that the only non-zero connection coefficients are given by (4.25), we conclude
that
eα (Γα 0
µν ) = e0 (Γµν ) = 0

unless µ = ν = i. Moreover,
eα (Γα 0
ii ) = e0 (Γii ) = Ḣ.
34 CHAPTER 4. CURVATURE

The 00-component of the Ricci tensor. Compute, using the above observations as well as the
fact that the only non-zero connection coefficients are given by (4.25),

Ric(e0 , e0 ) =eα (Γα λ α α λ α λ α

00 ) + Γ00 Γαλ − e0 (Γα0 ) − Γα0 Γ0λ − γα0 Γλ0
X X
=− e0 (Γii0 ) + i i
γ0i Γi0 = nḢ − nH 2 ,
i i
α
where we have used the fact that the only non-zero γµν ’s are given by (4.23).
The 0i-components of the Ricci tensor. Compute

Ric(e0 , ei ) = eα (Γα λ α α λ α λ α
0i ) + Γ0i Γαλ − e0 (Γαi ) − Γαi Γ0λ − γα0 Γλi = 0;

since Γλ0β = 0 regardless of what λ and β are, the first, second and fourth terms on the right hand
side vanish; since Γ00i = 0 and Γjji = 0 regardles of the values of i and j, it is clear that Γα
αi = 0 (so
that the third term on the right hand side vanishes); in order for the first factor in the fifth term
to be non-vanishing, we have to have λ = α = j for some j = 1, . . . , n, cf. (4.23), but if λ = α = j,
then the second factor in the fifth term vanishes.
The ij-components of the Ricci tensor, i 6= j. If i 6= j, then

Ric(ei , ej ) =eα (Γα λ α α λ α λ α

ij ) + Γij Γαλ − ei (Γαj ) − Γαj Γiλ − γαi Γλj = 0. (4.28)

To justify this calculation, note that in order for Γα α

µν or γµν to be non-zero, two of the indices have
to be non-zero and equal, and the remaining index has to be zero. For this reason, the first three
terms on the right hand side of (4.28) vanish. Turning to the last two terms, there are indices
such that one of the factors appearing in these terms are non-vanishing. However, then the other
factor has to vanish.
The ij-components of the Ricci tensor, i = j. By arguments similar to ones given above,
Ric(ei , ei ) =eα (Γα λ α α λ α λ α
ii ) + Γii Γαλ − ei (Γαi ) − Γαi Γiλ − γαi Γλi

=e0 (Γ0ii ) + Γ0ii Γjj0 − Γ0ii Γii0 − γ0i

i 0
Γii
=Ḣ − nH 2 + H 2 − H 2 = Ḣ − nH 2
(no summation on i).
Summing up, we obtain the following lemma.
Lemma 76. Let I be an open interval, U be an open subset of Rn and g be defined by (4.19),
where t is the coordinate on the interval I and xi are the standard coordinates on Rn . Moreover, f
is a strictly positive smooth function on I and  = ±1. Let {eα }, α = 0, . . . , n, be the orthonormal
frame defined by (4.20). Then
Ric(eα , eβ ) = 0
if α 6= β. Moreover,
Ric(e0 , e0 ) =nḢ − nH 2 ,
Ric(ei , ei ) =Ḣ − nH 2
(no summation on i), where i = 1, . . . , n.

4.7 Calculating the Ricci curvature of the 2-sphere and n-

dimensional hyperbolic space
It is of interest to apply the calculations of the previous section to two special cases, namely that
of the 2-sphere and that of the n-dimensional hyperbolic space. Let us begin with the 2-sphere.
4.7. THE 2-SPHERE AND HYPERBOLIC SPACE 35

4.7.1 The Ricci curvature of the 2-sphere

Recall that the n-sphere and the metric on the n-sphere were defined in Example 27. Here we
calculate the Ricci curvature of this metric in case n = 2.
Proposition 77. Let S2 denote the 2-sphere and gS2 denote the metric on the 2-sphere. If Ric[gS2 ]
denotes the Ricci curvature of gS2 , then
Ric[gS2 ] = gS2 .
Remark 78. Note that the Ricci curvature of the 2-sphere is positive definite. There is a gen-
eral connection between the positive definiteness of the Ricci tensor and the compactness of the
manifold. In fact, the so-called Myers theorem implies the following: If (M, g) is a geodesically
complete and connected Riemannian manifold such that
Ric[g](v, v) ≥ c0 g(v, v) (4.29)
for some constant c0 > 0, all v ∈ Tp M and all p ∈ M , then M is compact (and π1 (M ) is finite).
We shall not prove this theorem here but refer the interested reader to [1, Theorem 24, p. 279] for
a proof.
Remark 79. In the case of 3-dimensions, there is an even deeper connection between the positive
definiteness of the Ricci tensor and the topology of the manifold. In fact, if (M, g) is a connected,
simply connected and geodesically complete Riemannian manifold of dimension 3 with positive
definite Ricci curvature (in the sense that (4.29) holds), then M is diffeomorphic to the 3-sphere.
This result is due to Richard Hamilton and we shall not prove it here.

Proof. Let
ψ : (0, π) × (0, 2π) → S2
be defined by
ψ(θ, φ) = (sin θ cos φ, sin θ sin φ, cos θ). (4.30)
2
Then ψ is a diffeomorphism onto its image, the image of ψ is dense in S and
ψ ∗ gS2 = dθ ⊗ dθ + sin2 θ dφ ⊗ dφ. (4.31)
We leave the verification of these statements as an exercise. Due to these facts (and the smoothness
of the Ricci tensor and the metric), it is sufficient to verify that
g = dθ ⊗ dθ + sin2 θ dφ ⊗ dφ
satisfies Ric = g for 0 < θ < π and 0 < φ < 2π.
The metric g is such that we are in the situation considered in Section 4.6; replace t with θ; x1
with φ; n with 1; f (t) with sin θ; and  with 1. As in Section 4.6, we also introduce the frame
1
e0 = ∂ θ , e1 = ∂φ .
sin θ
Note that
1
H=− ∂θ sin θ = − cot θ.
sin θ
Moreover,
cos2 θ 1
Ḣ = 1 + 2 = .
sin θ sin2 θ
Appealing to Lemma 76 then yields
1 cos2 θ
Ric(∂θ , ∂θ ) = Ric(e0 , e0 ) = 2 − = 1.
sin θ sin2 θ
Similarly, Ric(e1 , e1 ) = 1 and Ric(e0 , e1 ) = 0. The proposition follows.
Exercise 80. Let ψ be defined by (4.30). Prove that ψ is a diffeomorphism onto its image, that
the image of ψ is dense in S2 and that (4.31) holds.
36 CHAPTER 4. CURVATURE

4.7.2 The curvature of the upper half space model of hyperbolic space
Let us define Un by
Un = {x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Rn : xn > 0}.
Moreover, define
n
1 X i
gUn = dx ⊗ dxi .
(xn )2 i=1

Then (Un , gUn ) is called the upper half space model of n-dimensional hyperbolic space. Here, we
do not sort out the relation between this model and the metric defined in Example 27, but we
calculate the Ricci tensor of gUn .

Lemma 81. Let 1 ≤ n ∈ Z and let Un+1 and gUn+1 be defined as above. Then

Ric[gUn+1 ] = −ngUn+1 ,

where Ric[gUn+1 ] denotes the Ricci curvature of gUn+1 .

Proof. Let ψ : Rn+1 → Un+1 be defined by

ψ(x0 , . . . , xn ) = [x1 , . . . , xn , exp(x0 )].

Then ψ is a diffeomorphism from Un+1 to Rn+1 and

n
−2x0
X
∗ 0 0
g = ψ gUn+1 = dx ⊗ dx + e dxi ⊗ dxi .
i=1

Denoting x0 by t, introducing f by f (t) = e−t , and letting  = 1, we are exactly in the situation
considered in Section 4.6. Compute
f˙
H = − = 1.
f
Lemma 76 then yields Ric = −ng. The lemma follows.
Bibliography

[1] O’Neill, B.: Semi Riemannian Geometry. Academic Press, Orlando (1983)

[2] Lee, J. M.: Introduction to Smooth Manifolds (Second Edition). Springer, New York (2013)
[3] Spivak, M.: A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, Volume two. Publish or
Perish, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA (1979)

37
Index

Basis Group of isometries, 9

orthonormal, 2
Hyperbolic metric on H n , 8
Causal Hyperbolic space
curve, 11 upper half space model, 36
geodesic, 22
tangent vector, 11 Index
vectorfield, 11 metric, 7
Causal character scalar product, 2
vector, 4 Induced
Christoffel symbols, 18 metric, 8
Complete Inertial frames, 13
geodesic, 22
semi-Riemannian manifold, 22 Koszul formula, 16
Connection, 15
Laplacian, 29
Levi-Civita, 16
Levi-Civita connection, 16
metric, 16
Lightlike
torsion free, 16
curve, 10
Connection coefficients, 27
geodesic, 22
Contraction, 10
subspace, 5
Covariant derivative, 15
tangent vector, 10
Curve
vector, 4
causal, 11
vector field, 10
lightlike, 10
Linear isometry, 3
spacelike, 10
Lorentz
timelike, 10
manifold, 7
Divergence, 29 metric, 7
scalar product, 3
Euclidean Lorentz manifold
metric, 8 time orientable, 10
scalar product, 1 time oriented, 10
scalar product space, 1
Manifold
Future oriented Lorentz, 7
timelike vectors, 6 Riemannian, 7
semi-Riemannian, 7
Geodesic, 20 Time orientation, 10
causal, 22 Maximal geodesic, 22
complete, 22 Metric, 7
lightlike, 22 connection, 16
maximal, 22 Euclidean, 8
null, 22 index, 7
spacelike, 22 induced, 8
timelike, 22 Lorentz, 7
Gradient, 29 Minkowski, 8

38
INDEX 39

Riemannian, 7 geodesic, 22
semi-Riemannian, 7 submanifold, 11
time orientable, 10 subspace, 5
Minkowski tangent vector, 10
metric, 8 vector, 4
scalar product, 1 vector field, 10
scalar product space, 1 Spacetime, 10
Musical isomorphisms, 10 Submanifold
semi-Riemannian, 8
Non-degenerate spacelike, 11
subspace of a scalar product space, 4 Subspace
Null lightlike, 5
geodesic, 22 spacelike, 5
vector, 4 timelike, 5
Opposite timecone, 5 Tangent vector
Orthonormal causal, 11
basis, 2 lightlike, 10
Parallel spacelike, 10
translation along a curve, 20 timelike, 10
vector field along a curve, 19 Time orientable
Preserving scalar products, 3 Lorentz manifold, 10
metric, 10
Ricci tensor, 27 Time orientation
Riemann curvature tensor, 25 manifold, 10
Riemannian scalar product space, 6
manifold, 7 Time oriented
metric, 7 Lorentz manifold, 10
scalar product, 3 Timecone, 5
scalar product space, 3 opposite, 5
Round metric on Sn , 8 Timelike
curve, 10
Scalar curvature, 28 geodesic, 22
Scalar product, 1 subspace, 5
Euclidean, 1 tangent vector, 10
index, 2 vector, 4
Lorentz, 3 vector field, 10
Minkowski, 1 Timelike vectors
non-degenerate, 1 future oriented, 6
Riemannian, 3 Torsion free
symmetric, 1 connection, 16
Scalar product space, 1
Euclidean, 1 Upper half space model, 36
Minkowski, 1
Riemannian, 3 Vector
time orientation, 6 causal character, 4
Semi-Riemannian lightlike, 4
manifold, 7 null, 4
metric, 7 spacelike, 4
submanifold, 8 timelike, 4
Semi-Riemannian manifold Vector field
complete, 22 lightlike, 10
Spacelike spacelike, 10
curve, 10 timelike, 10
40 INDEX

Vectorfield
causal, 11

Warped product, 11