CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Stewart–Walker lemma

Open-knowledge reference entry

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 22, 2025
Entity authorityQ7616032 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Stewart–Walker lemma provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the linear perturbation of a tensor field to be gauge-invariant.

Δ

δ

T

=

0

{\displaystyle \Delta \delta T=0}

if and only if one of the following holds

1.

T

0

=

0

{\displaystyle T_{0}=0}

2.

T

0

{\displaystyle T_{0}}

is a constant scalar field

3.

T

0

{\displaystyle T_{0}}

is a linear combination of products of delta functions

δ

a

b

{\displaystyle \delta _{a}^{b}}

Derivation

A 1-parameter family of manifolds denoted by

M

ϵ

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}_{\epsilon }}

with

M

0

=

M

4

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}_{0}={\mathcal {M}}^{4}}

has metric

g

i

k

=

η

i

k

+

ϵ

h

i

k

{\displaystyle g_{ik}=\eta _{ik}+\epsilon h_{ik}}

. These manifolds can be put together to form a 5-manifold

N

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}}

. A smooth curve

γ

{\displaystyle \gamma }

can be constructed through

N

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}}

with tangent 5-vector

X

{\displaystyle X}

, transverse to

M

ϵ

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}_{\epsilon }}

. If

X

{\displaystyle X}

is defined so that if

h

t

{\displaystyle h_{t}}

is the family of 1-parameter maps which map

N

→

N

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}\to {\mathcal {N}}}

and

p

0

∈

M

0

{\displaystyle p_{0}\in {\mathcal {M}}_{0}}

then a point

p

ϵ

∈

M

ϵ

{\displaystyle p_{\epsilon }\in {\mathcal {M}}_{\epsilon }}

can be written as

h

ϵ

(

p

0

)

{\displaystyle h_{\epsilon }(p_{0})}

. This also defines a pull back

h

ϵ

∗

{\displaystyle h_{\epsilon }^{*}}

that maps a tensor field

T

ϵ

∈

M

ϵ

{\displaystyle T_{\epsilon }\in {\mathcal {M}}_{\epsilon }}

back onto

M

0

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}_{0}}

. Given sufficient smoothness a Taylor expansion can be defined

h

ϵ

∗

(

T

ϵ

)

=

T

0

+

ϵ

h

ϵ

∗

(

L

X

T

ϵ

)

+

O

(

ϵ

2

)

{\displaystyle h_{\epsilon }^{*}(T_{\epsilon })=T_{0}+\epsilon \,h_{\epsilon }^{*}({\mathcal {L}}_{X}T_{\epsilon })+O(\epsilon ^{2})}

δ

T

=

ϵ

h

ϵ

∗

(

L

X

T

ϵ

)

≡

ϵ

(

L

X

T

ϵ

)

0

{\displaystyle \delta T=\epsilon h_{\epsilon }^{*}({\mathcal {L}}_{X}T_{\epsilon })\equiv \epsilon ({\mathcal {L}}_{X}T_{\epsilon })_{0}}

is the linear perturbation of

T

{\displaystyle T}

.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Stewart–Walker lemma” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Stewart, Walker and lemma, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current 353-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Stewart, Walker and lemma is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 22, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q7616032. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Stewart–Walker lemma”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Stewart–Walker lemma primary sources, Stewart–Walker lemma archive and Stewart research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Stewart–Walker lemma”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Stewart–Walker lemma” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.