The Unapologetic Mathematician

The Lie Derivative on Forms

We’ve defined the Lie derivative $L_XY$ of one vector field $Y$ by another, $X$. This worked by using the flow of $X$ to compare nearby points, and used the derivative of the flow to translate vectors.

Well now we know how to translate $k$-forms by pulling back, and thus we can define another Lie derivative:

$\displaystyle L_X\omega=\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left((\Phi_t)^*(\omega)-\omega\right)$

What happens if $\omega$ is a $0$-form — a function $f$? We check

$\displaystyle\begin{aligned}\left[L_Xf\right](p)&=\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left(\left[(\Phi_t)^*(f)\right](p)-f(p)\right)\\&=\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left(f\left(\Phi_t(p)\right)-f(p)\right)\\&=X_p(f)=Xf(p)\end{aligned}$

That is, the Lie derivative by $X$ acts on $\Omega^0(M)$ exactly the same as the vector field $X$ does itself.

I also say that the Lie derivative by $X$ is a degree-zero derivation of the algebra $\Omega(M)$. That is, it’s a real-linear transformation, and it satisfies the Leibniz rule:

$\displaystyle L_X(\alpha\wedge\beta)=\left(L_X\alpha\right)\wedge\beta+\alpha\wedge\left(L_X\beta\right)$

for any $k$-form $\alpha$ and $l$-form $\beta$. Linearity is straightforward, and given linearity the Leibniz rule follows if we can show

$\displaystyle L_X(\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_k)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^k\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\left(L_X\alpha_i\right)\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_k$

for $1$-forms $\alpha_i$. Indeed, we can write $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as linear combinations of such $k$- and $l$-fold wedges, and then the Leibniz rule is obvious.

So, let us calculate:

$\displaystyle\begin{aligned}L_X\left(\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_k\right)=&\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left((\Phi_t)^*\left(\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_k\right)-\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_k\right)\\=&\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left(\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_1\right)\wedge\dots\wedge\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_k\right)-\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_k\right)\\=&\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left(\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_1\right)\wedge\dots\wedge\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_k\right)-\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\wedge\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_k\right)\right)\\&+\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left(\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\wedge\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_k\right)-\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_k\right)\\=&\lim\limits_{t\to0}\left(\frac{1}{t}\left(\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_1\right)\wedge\dots\wedge\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_{k-1}\right)-\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\right)\wedge\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_k\right)\right)\\&+\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\wedge\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left(\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_k\right)-\alpha_k\right)\\=&\left(\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{1}{t}\left(\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_1\right)\wedge\dots\wedge\left((\Phi_t)^*\alpha_{k-1}\right)-\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\right)\right)\wedge\alpha_k\\&+\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\wedge L_X\alpha_k\\&=L_X\left(\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\right)\wedge\alpha_k+\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{k-1}\wedge L_X\alpha_k\end{aligned}$

So we see how we can peel off one of the $1$-forms. A simple induction gives us the general case.

Like this:

Posted by John Armstrong | Differential Topology, Topology

5 Comments	»

1. [...] Lie derivative looks sort of familiar as a derivative, but we have another sort of derivative on the algebra of [...]

Pingback by | July 15, 2011 | Reply

2. [...] . But since it takes -forms and sends them to -forms, it has degree one instead of zero like the Lie derivative. As a consequence, the Leibniz rule looks a little different. If is a -form and is an -form, I [...]

Pingback by | July 16, 2011 | Reply

3. [...] It turns out that there is a fantastic relationship between the interior product, the exterior derivative, and the Lie derivative. [...]

Pingback by | July 26, 2011 | Reply

4. [...] Cartan’s formula in hand we can show that the Lie derivative is a chain map . That is, it commutes with the exterior derivative. And indeed, it’s easy to [...]

Pingback by | July 28, 2011 | Reply

5. [...] Armstrong: The algebra of differential forms, Pulling back forms, The Lie derivative on forms, The exterior derivative is a derivative, The exterior derivative is nilpotent, De Rham Cohomology, [...]

Pingback by | July 30, 2011 | Reply

« Previous | Next »

About this weblog

This is mainly an expository blath, with occasional high-level excursions, humorous observations, rants, and musings. The main-line exposition should be accessible to the “Generally Interested Lay Audience”, as long as you trace the links back towards the basics. Check the sidebar for specific topics (under “Categories”).

I’m in the process of tweaking some aspects of the site to make it easier to refer back to older topics, so try to make the best of it for now.
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 29, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": false, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9233972430229187, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}