Manifold Question: Tensor Analysis for Beginners

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter waht
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Manifold
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of manifolds in the context of tensor analysis, particularly whether a manifold is defined by the metric tensor or if it exists independently of it. Participants explore the definitions and properties of manifolds, including their topological aspects and the role of the metric tensor.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that manifolds with a metric tensor are a specific type of manifold, while the general notion of a manifold is broader.
  • Others argue that a manifold does not require a global metric to be defined, emphasizing that it is a set of points with local properties resembling Euclidean space.
  • A participant suggests that understanding manifolds can be aided by visualizing them as curves or surfaces in three-dimensional space, while also mentioning concepts like curvature and parallel transport.
  • It is noted that curvature and parallel transport depend on the properties of the metric tensor, but the basic definition of a manifold remains independent of these properties.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the concept of a manifold being locally Euclidean and seeks clarification on this aspect.
  • Another participant explains that "locally Euclidean" means that around every point on the manifold, there exists a neighborhood that can be treated like normal Euclidean space, which is relevant in contexts like general relativity.
  • Some participants agree that a manifold can be viewed as a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space, while also discussing the implications of introducing a standard metric.
  • An example of a sphere is provided to illustrate the concept of a manifold, including the associated structures like tangent planes and vector fields.
  • It is mentioned that calculus can be performed on a manifold without a metric, but measuring certain properties like arc lengths and curvature requires one.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of a metric tensor for defining a manifold. While some agree on the topological nature of manifolds, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of metrics and their role in manifold theory.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in understanding arise from the varying definitions and interpretations of manifolds and metrics, as well as the complexity of the concepts discussed, which may depend on specific mathematical contexts.

waht
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
4
Is the manifold a space defined by the metric tensor or is it a completetly different thing. I'm new to tensor analysis though.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, infact a manifold doesn't necessarily need to have a (global) metric dfeined in order to be a manifold! A manifold is basically anything that can be continously parameterized or more formally, is a set of points where every point has an open neighbourhood that is homeomorphic to Rn (where n is the dimension of the manifold). The metric tensor field defines the scalar product at each point on a manifold, it doesn't define the manifold as a manifold is still a manifold whether the scalar product is defined or not.
 
For comfort, think about manifold as a curve or surface embedded in 3D space. And work hard to know everything about those stuff including n-D hypersurfaces, Gauss curvature, Riemannian curvature, and parallel transport, you be ready to step up to the manifold's world without metric.
 
Actually gvk things like curvature and parallel transport dpend on the properties of the metric tensor, a mainofld at it's most basic is really just a set o fpoitns where for each point we have set of other points which are 'near to it'.
 
re

that makes more sense now, so basically the parametric equations define a manifold.

"Actually gvk things like curvature and parallel transport dpend on the properties of the metric tensor, a mainofld at it's most basic is really just a set o fpoitns where for each point we have set of other points which are 'near to it "

and the wolfram describes the manifold as a topological space that is locally Euclidean.

I don't get this part.
 
Okay by locally Eudlidean what is meant that for every point on the mainfold there is also a neighbourhood (if you like all the points that are less than x distance away) which is Euclidean, i.e. we can if we like treat this neighbourhood just like normal Euclidean space. So for example in general relativity the laws of special relativity are not true in a general sense but thanks to the fact that spavcetime is represnted by a manifold they are always true locally (i.e. they are true as long as we only talk about a small region of spacetime).
 
I agree that a manifold is a topological space (by introducing open sets) that locally lokes like the euclidian space.
In my opinion you introduce (if you want it ar not) the standard metric with this last restriction(lokes like the euclidian space) in the topological space. I agree that at this level of the manifold you don' t use it. But when you define a calculus on that manifold you use the fact that the euclidian space is equiped with the standard metric.
 
an example of a manifold is a sphere.

If you include also the family of tangent planes to the sphere and a smoothly varying dot product on all these planes, you have a (Riemannian) metric.

a family of velocity vectors, v(p), one at each point p of the sphere, is an example of a "vector field".

The family of linear functionals, <v(p), > on tangent vectors defined by a vector field and a dot product, is an example of a "covector" field.

The family of dot products itself < , >(p), is an example of a "tensor field".

so naturally if you view your original sphere as embedded in three space, then the planes and dot product come along for free, and you do not notice they are extra structure.

And by the way, you do not need a metric to do calculus on a manifold, at least not to define derivatives, velocity vectors, and integrate differential forms. Only to measure arc lengths and curvature, volume, etc...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K