DOCSLIB.ORG

Spacetime Orientation and the Meaning of Lorentz Invariance In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spacetime Orientation and the Meaning of Lorentz Invariance In Spacetime orientation and the meaning of Lorentz invariance in general relativity Zhongmin Qian∗ Summary. The parity violation at the level of weak in- principle of relativity, is The Principle of Lorentz In- teractions and other similar discrete symmetries break- variance, whose formulation itself, will be examined ing show that the invariance of laws under the full carefully in the setting of general relativity in this arti- group of Lorentz transformations can not be taken cle, depends heavily on the gravitational potential, and granted. We examine the principle of Lorentz invari- is an important guide for determining physical laws of ance under the general theory of relativity, and demon- Nature. strate the importance of a concept of the spacetime ori- We shall begin with what Einstein said in his foun- entation as part of the causal structure of spacetime. dation papers on the relativity theory. In the special relativity paper [9], published in 1905 (see e.g. page 41, [22]), Einstein formulated two postulates to ad- 1 Introduction vance his theory of relativity. 1. The laws by which the states of physical sys- According to French (see page 66, [14]), “a relativ- tems undergo change are not affected, whether these ity principle is an assertion about the laws of nature changes of state be referred to the one or the other of as they would be determined by observations made in two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory mo- different frames of reference”, and Galileo and New- tion. ton’s relativity principle is “the assertion ... that there 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” sys- are whole classes of reference frames with respect to tem of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, which the laws of physics have precisely the same whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a mov- form”. In the review article [3], H. Bondi stated that ing body. “A physical statement of what these invariants are is The first postulate called the principle of relativity called a principle of relativity, and the fundamental in Einstein [9], is more often called the principle of equations of a theory usually define the principle of equivalence, satisfied also by the mechanics of Galileo relativity applicable to it.” Therefore Bondi recog- and Newton. According to Eddington [8], the prin- nized the content of invariance principles to be in- ciple of equivalence demands “the laws of motion of cluded in the principle of relativity. undisturbed material particles and of light-pulses in a Throughout the history, the principle of relativity form independent of the coordinates chosen.” (page has gone through several critical revisions by the sci- 39, [8]). It was already clear to Eddington that the entific giants, and each crucial revision over the last principle of equivalence “has played a great part as a arXiv:1802.05290v1 [gr-qc] 14 Feb 2018 300 years, from Galileo, Newton to Einstein, has guide in the original building up of the ... relativity brought a revolution in mankind’s understanding of theory; but now ... it has become less necessary.” (see laws of Nature. According to the current research in page 41, [8]). Therefore, with the establishment of science and technology, it is recognized that the prin- mathematical models for spacetime, the principle of ciple of relativity, formulated by Einstein in the most equivalence is no longer useful for describing physics recent revision of the principle, covers three postu- laws. In his foundation paper [10] on general relativity, lates which have different physical meanings. The first Einstein re-examined the principle of relativity, and he is The Principle of Equivalence, which leads to the wrote “The laws of physics must be of such a nature mathematical models of space-time. The second is the that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of so-called The Covariance Principle, which determines motion.” Note here Einstein used the phase “systems possible mathematical formulation for laws of Nature, of reference” instead of “coordinate systems”. In the but does not involve physical processes. The last one, same paper (see page 117, [22]), however, Einstein without doubt the most important component of the stated that “The general laws of nature are to be ex- ∗Exeter College, Turl Street, Oxford, OX1 3DP, England. pressed by equations which hold good for all systems Email: [email protected] of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect 1 to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).” 2 The principle of relativity This version of principle of relativity is too narrow which deprived the important component in the pre- We are in a position to give precise meanings for the vious formulation Einstein stated. It is not known why context of the principle of relativity, to motivate our in- Einstein retreated from the principle of relativity, to a terpretation of Lorentz invariance in the general theory narrow version of the covariance principle. of relativity. In the only relativity textbook [2] endorsed by Ein- stein, Bergmann wrote (see page 154) that “The princi- 1. The equivalence principle and the principle of ple of equivalence was ostensibly a fundamental prop- constancy of light velocity. The mathematical models erty of the gravitational forces”, and “the equivalence of spacetime in special and general theories of relativ- of gravitational and interial fields (which is a con- ity (see [9, 10]) were established based on two postu- sequence of the equality of gravitational and inertial lates, the first is the equivalence principle which does masses) gave the principle of equivalence its name”. not involve any physics (see e.g. Norton [24] for a re- About the principle of general covariance, Bergmann view about the meaning of this postulate), the second stated (on page 159, [2]) that “The hypothesis is that is the principle of constancy of light velocity, which the geometry of physical space is represented best by implicitly requires that physical processes propagate a formalism which is covariant with respect to general with speed less than or equal to the velocity c of light. coordinate transformations, and that a restriction to a Together, in the special theory of relativity, the two less general group of transformations would not sim- postulates lead to the mathematical model of space- plify that formalism, is called the principle of general time, the Minkowski space. If the motion of a particle covariance”. Therefore, the equivalence principle is is described by space coordinates x,y and z, parame- used to construct mathematical models for spacetime terized by a time variable t, then the postulate of con- only, while the principle of covariance is a mathemat- stancy of light speed demands thatx ˙2 + y˙2 + z˙2 ≤ c2, ical requirement for constructing fields. which can be written in terms of differentials, i.e. 2 2 2 2 2 Let us look at what Pauli said about the principle c dt − dx − dy − dz ≥ 0. The last inequality im- 4 of equivalence. On page 145, [25], Pauli formulated mediately leads to the Minkowski metric on R , so the general version of the equivalence principle as that concepts of space and time are united in a natural way “For every infinitely small world region (i.e. a world in this model. In the general theory of relativity, the region which is so small that the space- and time- two postulates are applied to develop general contin- variation of gravity can be neglected in it) there always uum space-time models being manifolds of dimension 2 µ ν exists a coordinate system – in which gravitation has four, together with a Lorentz metric ds = gµν dx dx no influence either on the motion of particles or any with signature (1,−1,−1,−1). The core element of other physical processes.” What Pauli stated, wrote the general theory of relativity is however the postu- just after the creation of Einstein’s general theory of late that the gravitation is described by the curvature relativity, is a very precise statement of the equiva- tensor field associated with the gravitational potential lence principle – the gravitational potential can not be (gµν ). detected locally. Taking a Lorentz manifold (M,gµν ) as a model of In [28], Weyl formulated the principle of relativ- spacetime, the principle of equivalence is no longer ity of Galilei and Newton as the following (page 154, a postulate rather than a mathematical statement: for [28]): “it is impossible to single out from the sys- every event x ∈ M, there is a local coordinate sys- tems of reference that are equivalent for mechanics and tem about x (i.e. there is a system of reference near of which each two are correlated by the formulae of x), such that the gravitational potential (gµν ) is di- transformation III special systems without specifying agonalized to coincide with the Minkowski metric individual objects”, here a transformation III means a diag(1,−1,−1,−1) (but this may be true only at x). linear transformation of following type Therefore, the gravitational potential field can not be detected locally. The gravitational effect however can ′ ′ ′ not be wiped away, this is because for whatever the x1 = a11x1 + a12x2 + γ1t + α1 ′ ′ ′ local coordinate system we choose to describe physi- x2 = a21x1 + a22x2 + γ2t + α2 ′ cal processes, one can not write off the curvature even t = t + a locally. where ai j, γk, αk and a are constant. Thus Weyl in- 2. The principle of covariance. Let us exam- cluded the principle of Lorentz invariance (though in a ine the covariance principle for Einstein’s spacetime restricted sense) as a component of relativity principle. (M,gµν ), which is a principle emphasized in litera- 2 ture, it is however a basic requirement for describing der these reflections1, although all the exact laws of physical processes in a way mathematically meaning- nature so far known do have this invariance.” In 1956 ful.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Refraction and Reflexion According to the Principle of General Covariance
    REFRACTION AND REFLEXION ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL COVARIANCE PATRICK IGLESIAS-ZEMMOUR Abstract. We show how the principle of general covariance introduced by Souriau in smoothly uniform contexts, can be extended to singular situ- ations, considering the group of diffeomorphisms preserving the singular locus. As a proof of concept, we shall see how we get again this way, the laws of reflection and refraction in geometric optics, applying an extended general covariance principle to Riemannian metrics, discontinuous along a hypersurface. Introduction In his paper “Modèle de particule à spin dans le champ électromagnétique et gravitationnel” published in 1974 [Sou74], Jean-Marie Souriau suggests a pre- cise mathematical interpretation of the principle of General Relativity. He names it the Principle of General Covariance. Considering only gravitation field1, he claimed that any material presence in the universe is characterized by a covector defined on the quotient of the set of the Pseudo-Riemannian metrics on space-time, by the group of diffeomorphisms. This principle be- ing, according to Souriau, the correct statement of the Einsteins’s principle of invariance with respect to any change of coordinates. Actually, Souriau’s general covariance principle can be regarded as the active version of Einstein invariance statement, where change of coordinates are interpreted from the active point of view as the action of the group of diffeomorphisms. Now, for reasons relative to the behavior at infinity and results requirement, the group of diffeomorphisms of space-time is reduced to the subgroup of compact supported diffeomorphisms. Date: April 6, 2019. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 83C10, 78A05, 37J10.
    [Show full text]
  • Newtonian Gravity and Special Relativity 12.1 Newtonian Gravity
    Physics 411 Lecture 12 Newtonian Gravity and Special Relativity Lecture 12 Physics 411 Classical Mechanics II Monday, September 24th, 2007 It is interesting to note that under Lorentz transformation, while electric and magnetic fields get mixed together, the force on a particle is identical in magnitude and direction in the two frames related by the transformation. Indeed, that was the motivation for looking at the manifestly relativistic structure of Maxwell's equations. The idea was that Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law are automatically in accord with the notion that observations made in inertial frames are physically equivalent, even though observers may disagree on the names of these forces (electric or magnetic). Today, we will look at a force (Newtonian gravity) that does not have the property that different inertial frames agree on the physics. That will lead us to an obvious correction that is, qualitatively, a prediction of (linearized) general relativity. 12.1 Newtonian Gravity We start with the experimental observation that for a particle of mass M and another of mass m, the force of gravitational attraction between them, according to Newton, is (see Figure 12.1): G M m F = − RR^ ≡ r − r 0: (12.1) r 2 From the force, we can, by analogy with electrostatics, construct the New- tonian gravitational field and its associated point potential: GM GM G = − R^ = −∇ − : (12.2) r 2 r | {z } ≡φ 1 of 7 12.2. LINES OF MASS Lecture 12 zˆ m !r M !r ! yˆ xˆ Figure 12.1: Two particles interacting via the Newtonian gravitational force.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 the Relativistic Point Particle
    Chapter 5 The Relativistic Point Particle To formulate the dynamics of a system we can write either the equations of motion, or alternatively, an action. In the case of the relativistic point par- ticle, it is rather easy to write the equations of motion. But the action is so physical and geometrical that it is worth pursuing in its own right. More importantly, while it is difficult to guess the equations of motion for the rela- tivistic string, the action is a natural generalization of the relativistic particle action that we will study in this chapter. We conclude with a discussion of the charged relativistic particle. 5.1 Action for a relativistic point particle How can we find the action S that governs the dynamics of a free relativis- tic particle? To get started we first think about units. The action is the Lagrangian integrated over time, so the units of action are just the units of the Lagrangian multiplied by the units of time. The Lagrangian has units of energy, so the units of action are L2 ML2 [S]=M T = . (5.1.1) T 2 T Recall that the action Snr for a free non-relativistic particle is given by the time integral of the kinetic energy: 1 dx S = mv2(t) dt , v2 ≡ v · v, v = . (5.1.2) nr 2 dt 105 106 CHAPTER 5. THE RELATIVISTIC POINT PARTICLE The equation of motion following by Hamilton’s principle is dv =0. (5.1.3) dt The free particle moves with constant velocity and that is the end of the story.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity : Particle Probability from Interaction Weighting
    Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 24, 1999 25 Quantum Mechanics From General Relativity : Particle Probability from Interaction Weighting Mendel Sachs Department of Physics State University of New York at Bualo ABSTRACT. Discussion is given to the conceptual and mathemat- ical change from the probability calculus of quantum mechanics to a weighting formalism, when the paradigm change takes place from linear quantum mechanics to the nonlinear, holistic eld theory that accompanies general relativity, as a fundamental theory of matter. This is a change from a nondeterministic, linear theory of an open system of ‘particles’ to a deterministic, nonlinear, holistic eld the- ory of the matter of a closed system. RESUM E. On discute le changement conceptuel et mathematique qui fait passer du calcul des probabilites de la mecanique quantique a un formalisme de ponderation, quand on eectue le changement de paradigme substituantalam ecanique quantique lineairelatheorie de champ holistique non lineaire qui est associee alatheorie de la relativitegenerale, prise comme theorie fondamentale de la matiere. Ce changement mene d’une theorie non deterministe et lineaire decrivant un systeme ouvert de ‘particules’ a une theorie de champ holistique, deterministe et non lineaire, de la matiere constituant un systeme ferme. 1. Introduction. In my view, one of the three most important experimental discov- eries of 20th century physics was the wave nature of matter. [The other two were 1) blackbody radiation and 2) the bending of a beam of s- tarlight as it propagates past the vicinity of the sun]. The wave nature of matter was predicted in the pioneering theoretical studies of L.
    [Show full text]
  • Covariance in Physics and Convolutional Neural Networks
    Covariance in Physics and Convolutional Neural Networks Miranda C. N. Cheng 1 2 3 Vassilis Anagiannis 2 Maurice Weiler 4 Pim de Haan 5 4 Taco S. Cohen 5 Max Welling 5 Abstract change of coordinates. In his words, the general principle In this proceeding we give an overview of the of covariance states that “The general laws of nature are idea of covariance (or equivariance) featured in to be expressed by equations which hold good for all sys- the recent development of convolutional neural tems of coordinates, that is, are covariant with respect to networks (CNNs). We study the similarities and any substitutions whatever (generally covariant)” (Einstein, differencesbetween the use of covariance in theo- 1916). The rest is history: the incorporation of the math- retical physics and in the CNN context. Addition- ematics of Riemannian geometry in order to achieve gen- ally, we demonstrate that the simple assumption eral covariance and the formulation of the general relativity of covariance, together with the required proper- (GR) theory of gravity. It is important to note that the seem- ties of locality, linearity and weight sharing, is ingly innocent assumption of general covariance is in fact sufficient to uniquely determine the form of the so powerful that it determines GR as the unique theory of convolution. gravity compatible with this principle, and the equivalence principle in particular, up to short-distance corrections1. In a completely different context, it has become clear 1. Covariance and Uniqueness in recent years that a coordinate-independent description It is well-known that the principle of covariance, or coordi- is also desirable for convolutional networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Derivation of Generalized Einstein's Equations of Gravitation in Some
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 5 February 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202102.0157.v1 Derivation of generalized Einstein's equations of gravitation in some non-inertial reference frames based on the theory of vacuum mechanics Xiao-Song Wang Institute of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, Henan Province, 454000, China (Dated: Dec. 15, 2020) When solving the Einstein's equations for an isolated system of masses, V. Fock introduces har- monic reference frame and obtains an unambiguous solution. Further, he concludes that there exists a harmonic reference frame which is determined uniquely apart from a Lorentz transformation if suitable supplementary conditions are imposed. It is known that wave equations keep the same form under Lorentz transformations. Thus, we speculate that Fock's special harmonic reference frames may have provided us a clue to derive the Einstein's equations in some special class of non-inertial reference frames. Following this clue, generalized Einstein's equations in some special non-inertial reference frames are derived based on the theory of vacuum mechanics. If the field is weak and the reference frame is quasi-inertial, these generalized Einstein's equations reduce to Einstein's equa- tions. Thus, this theory may also explain all the experiments which support the theory of general relativity. There exist some differences between this theory and the theory of general relativity. Keywords: Einstein's equations; gravitation; general relativity; principle of equivalence; gravitational aether; vacuum mechanics. I. INTRODUCTION p. 411). Theoretical interpretation of the small value of Λ is still open [6]. The Einstein's field equations of gravitation are valid 3.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYS 402: Electricity & Magnetism II
    PHYS 610: Electricity & Magnetism I Due date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 Problem set #2 1. Adding rapidities Prove that collinear rapidities are additive, i.e. if A has a rapidity relative to B, and B has rapidity relative to C, then A has rapidity + relative to C. 2. Velocity transformation Consider a particle moving with velocity 푢⃗ = (푢푥, 푢푦, 푢푧) in frame S. Frame S’ moves with velocity 푣 = 푣푧̂ in S. Show that the velocity 푢⃗ ′ = (푢′푥, 푢′푦, 푢′푧) of the particle as measured in frame S’ is given by the following expressions: 푑푥′ 푢푥 푢′푥 = = 2 푑푡′ 훾(1 − 푣푢푧/푐 ) 푑푦′ 푢푦 푢′푦 = = 2 푑푡′ 훾(1 − 푣푢푧/푐 ) 푑푧′ 푢푧 − 푣 푢′푧 = = 2 푑푡′ (1 − 푣푢푧/푐 ) Note that the velocity components perpendicular to the frame motion are transformed (as opposed to the Lorentz transformation of the coordinates of the particle). What is the physics for this difference in behavior? 3. Relativistic acceleration Jackson, problem 11.6. 4. Lorenz gauge Show that you can always find a gauge function 휆(푟 , 푡) such that the Lorenz gauge condition is satisfied (you may assume that a wave equation with an arbitrary source term is solvable). 5. Relativistic Optics An astronaut in vacuum uses a laser to produce an electromagnetic plane wave with electric amplitude E0' polarized in the y'-direction travelling in the positive x'-direction in an inertial reference frame S'. The astronaut travels with velocity v along the +z-axis in the S inertial frame. a) Write down the electric and magnetic fields for this propagating plane wave in the S' inertial frame – you are free to pick the phase convention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lorentz Transformation
    The Lorentz Transformation Karl Stratos 1 The Implications of Self-Contained Worlds It sucks to have an upper bound of light speed on velocity (especially for those who demand space travel). Being able to loop around the globe seven times and a half in one second is pretty fast, but it's still far from infinitely fast. Light has a definite speed, so why can't we just reach it, and accelerate a little bit more? This unfortunate limitation follows from certain physical facts of the universe. • Maxwell's equations enforce a certain speed for light waves: While de- scribing how electric and magnetic fields interact, they predict waves that move at around 3 × 108 meters per second, which are established to be light waves. • Inertial (i.e., non-accelerating) frames of reference are fully self-contained, with respect to the physical laws: For illustration, Galileo observed in a steadily moving ship that things were indistinguishable from being on terra firma. The physical laws (of motion) apply exactly the same. People concocted a medium called the \aether" through which light waves trav- eled, like sound waves through the air. But then inertial frames of reference are not self-contained, because if one moves at a different velocity from the other, it will experience a different light speed with respect to the common aether. This violates the results from Maxwell's equations. That is, light beams in a steadily moving ship will be distinguishable from being on terra firma; the physical laws (of Maxwell's equations) do not apply the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost in the Tensors: Einstein's Struggles with Covariance Principles 1912-1916"
    JOHN EARMAN and CLARK GL YMOUR LOST IN THE TENSORS: EINSTEIN'S STRUGGLES WITH COVARIANCE PRINCIPLES 1912-1916" Introduction IN 1912 Einstein began to devote a major portion of his time and energy to an attempt to construct a relativistic theory of gravitation. A strong intimation of the struggle that lay ahead is contained in a letter to Arnold Sommerfeld dated October 29, 1912: At the moment I am working solely on the problem of gravitation and believe 1 will be able to overcome all difficulties with the help of a local, friendly mathemat- ician. But one thing is certain, that I have never worked so hard in my life, and that I have been injected with a great awe of mathematics, which in my naivet~ until now I only viewed as a pure luxury in its subtler forms! Compared to this problem the original theory of relativity is mere child's play.' Einstein's letter contained only a perfunctory reply to a query from Sommerfeld about the Debye-Born theory of specific heats. Obviously disappointed, Som- merfeld wrote to Hilbert: 'My letter to Einstein was in vain . Einstein is evidently so deeply mired in gravitation that he is deaf to everything else? Sommerfeld's words were more prophetic than he could possibly have known; the next three years were to see Einstein deeply mired in gravitation, sometimes seemingly hopelessly so. In large measure, Einstein's struggle resulted from his use and his misuse, his understanding and his misunderstanding of the nature and implications of covariance principles. In brief, considerations of general covariance were bound up with Einstein's motive for seeking a 'generalized' theory of relativity; mis- understandings about the meaning and implementation of this motivation threatened to wreck the search; and in the end, the desire for general covariance helped to bring Einstein back onto the track which led to what we now recognize *Present address c/o Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Gr-Qc/0507001V3 16 Oct 2005
    October 29, 2018 21:28 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE ijmp˙october12 International Journal of Modern Physics D c World Scientific Publishing Company Gravitomagnetism and the Speed of Gravity Sergei M. Kopeikin Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA [email protected] Experimental discovery of the gravitomagnetic fields generated by translational and/or rotational currents of matter is one of primary goals of modern gravitational physics. The rotational (intrinsic) gravitomagnetic field of the Earth is currently measured by the Gravity Probe B. The present paper makes use of a parametrized post-Newtonian (PN) expansion of the Einstein equations to demonstrate how the extrinsic gravitomag- netic field generated by the translational current of matter can be measured by observing the relativistic time delay caused by a moving gravitational lens. We prove that mea- suring the extrinsic gravitomagnetic field is equivalent to testing relativistic effect of the aberration of gravity caused by the Lorentz transformation of the gravitational field. We unfold that the recent Jovian deflection experiment is a null-type experiment testing the Lorentz invariance of the gravitational field (aberration of gravity), thus, confirming existence of the extrinsic gravitomagnetic field associated with orbital motion of Jupiter with accuracy 20%. We comment on erroneous interpretations of the Jovian deflection experiment given by a number of researchers who are not familiar with modern VLBI technique and subtleties of JPL ephemeris. We propose to measure the aberration of gravity effect more accurately by observing gravitational deflection of light by the Sun and processing VLBI observations in the geocentric frame with respect to which the Sun arXiv:gr-qc/0507001v3 16 Oct 2005 is moving with velocity ∼ 30 km/s.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    note1 : August 29, 2012 Introduction Principle of locality The principle of locality states that an object can Quantum Field Theory—in the context of parti- only be influenced by its immediate surroundings. cle physics—is a theory of elementary particles and From this principle follows the finite speed of in- their interactions. The Standard Model of elemen- formation transmission. tary particles is a quantum field theory. By definition, elementary particles are the most Principle of covariance fundamental—structureless—particles (like elec- trons and photons). They exhibit wave-particle du- The principle of covariance emphasizes formulation ality: on the one hand they diffract and interfere as of physical laws using only those physical quanti- waves (fields), on the other hand they appear and ties the measurements of which the observers in disappear as whole entities, called quanta. Hence different frames of reference could unambiguously the name of the theory. correlate. A quantum field theory seeks to explain certain Mathematically speaking, the physical quantities fundamental experimental observations—the exis- must transform covariantly, that is, under a certain tence of antiparticles, the spin-statistics relation, representation of the group of coordinate transfor- the CPT symmetry—as well as predict the results mations between admissible frames of reference of of any given experiment, like the cross-section for the physical theory. This group of coordinate trans- the Compton scattering, or the value of the anoma- formations is referred to as the covariance group of lous magnetic moment of the electron. the theory. There are two popular approaches to deal with The principle of covariance does not require in- quantum fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Phys 4390: General Relativity Lecture 5: Intro. to Tensor Algebra
    PHYS 4390: GENERAL RELATIVITY LECTURE 5: INTRO. TO TENSOR ALGEBRA Vectors are sufficient to describe Newtonian mechanics, however General Rela- tivity will require more general objects than vectors, namely tensors. To introduce these, we will first discuss the tensor algebra through an abstract approach, and afterwards introduce the conventional approach based on indices. While much of our discussion of tensors will appear to be in Rn, tensors may be defined on any differential manifold. This is due to the fact that a differential manifold is an object that appears locally like Euclidean space but is globally different. 1. Curves and Surfaces on a Manifold 1.1. Parametric Approach. A curve may be described with one single parame- ter, u, and defines coordinates in an n-dimensional manifold, xa = xa(u); a = 1; ::n: A surface has two parameters, and may be written as xa = xa(u; v) and in general a m-dimensional surface has m degrees of freedom, and is defined by xa = xa(u1; u2; :::; um) We may call a surface a subspace, and a surface with m = n − 1 degrees of freedom a hypersurface. 1.2. I. nstead of a parametric approach, we can describe a surface as a set of constraints. To see how, consider a hypersurface, xa = xa(u1; :::; un−1), taking each coordinate xa we could eliminate u1 to un−1 leaving one function that must vanish f(x1; x2; :::; xn) = 0 Thus, the parametric approach for a hypersurface is equivalent to imposing a con- straint. As an example in R2 the constraint x2 + y2 − R2 = 0 describes a circle ( i.e., S1).
    [Show full text]