Sometimes I almost despair reading this book. I cannot understand part of it or find a solution. When I do, the feeling of joy is superb. There is much air punching. This is a case in point.
This was not so simple and I struggled with the substitution for days. (1) is easy to show algebraically or geometrically. Getting to the metric in polar coordinates involves various differentiation rules: (trig functions and the product rule), but then they need to be applied to infinitesimals (dx, dθ etc) rather than proper derivatives (dx/dy etc). That aspect was very novel to me.
Why am I here?
I'm still thinking about commutators and wanted to
understand Appendix B on Diffeomorphisms and Lie Derivatives. Lie (pronounced
lee) brackets are the same as commutators. Appendix B starts by saying "we
continue the explorations of the previous Appendix", so I was thrown back.
Appendix A is fairly comprehensible and there is a good example at the end. I'll
restate the first part here:
The problem part 1
Consider the two-sphere embedded in ℝ3,
thought of as the locus of points a unit distance from the origin. If we put
coordinates θ, ф on S2 (the sphere) and x,y,z on ℝ3,
the map
is given by
ψ (θ, ф) = (sinθ cosф, sinθ sinф, cosθ) (1)
In the book this equation is written as
Sticking the sphere into
in this way
induces a metric on
, which is just the pull-back of the flat-space
metric. The simple-minded way to find this is to start with the metric
ф(θ, ф) = (sinθ cosф, sinθ sinф, cosθ) (A.11)
ф is used in the equation to mean a map and a coordinate. I will avoid this.
Sticking the sphere into
ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² (1a)
and substitute (1) into this expression yielding a metric dθ² + sin²θ dф² on S² .
This was not so simple and I struggled with the substitution for days. (1) is easy to show algebraically or geometrically. Getting to the metric in polar coordinates involves various differentiation rules: (trig functions and the product rule), but then they need to be applied to infinitesimals (dx, dθ etc) rather than proper derivatives (dx/dy etc). That aspect was very novel to me.
Along the way I made an interesting observation about
writing the matrix for ∂xyα. It is the transpose of the matrix
for ∂xyα. I will add this to my up coming opus on Tensors, Matrices and Indexes.
Five pages. You can read it here: Commentary App A Mapping S2 and R3.pdf
It contains a very useful corollary
It contains a very useful corollary on how to get the metric of a non-Cartesian system.
If we can transform non-Cartesian components p j
into Cartesian x i with equations
x i = f i (p j) (20)
i = 1..m, j = 1..n
Then we can construct the (n x m) pullback operator
Multiplying this by its transpose gives the metric of the non-Cartesian system.
Of necessity this is a (n x m) x (m x n) = (n x n) matrix, as it must be.
No comments:
Post a Comment