# Baez's vizualisation of Ricci tensor

• exponent137
In summary, the conversation discusses various equations and concepts related to tensors and transformations in general relativity. The main points are that the transformation laws are known, Einstein's equation is equivalent to the fact that all components of the Ricci tensor hold in any chosen local inertial frame, and the vector u in equation (6) is still of length ε, despite being written as 1 in some equations. The discussion also touches on the concept of ε² in the definition of a tensor, which is related to the infinitesimal area of a parallelogram. The overall conclusion is that the article by Baez is an excellent source for understanding these concepts.
exponent137
I am reading Baez's article http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103044v5.pdf and I do not understand paragraph before equation (10), page 18.

Equation (9) will be true if anyone component holds in all local inertial coordinate systems. This is a bit like the observation that all of Maxwell’s equations are contained in Gauss’s law and ∇B= 0. Of course, this is only true if we know how the fields transform under change of coordinates. Here we assume that the transformation laws are known. Given this, Einstein’s equation is equivalent to the fact that ...

1. If anyone local component holds in all inertial systems, does this means that we look only ##R_{tt}##, as eq. 10 shows?
2. Why all of Maxwell's equation's are contained in Gauss law and in ##\nabla \bf{B}##? Are both rotor equations unnecessary? Is ##\nabla \bf{B}## not a Gauss law?
3 Is equation 11 mentioned as local inertial systems, not as approximation?
4. Are transformation laws mentioned as pages 88 to 94 in http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019v1.pdf?

exponent137 said:
1. If anyone local component holds in all inertial systems, does this means that we look only ##R_{tt}##, as eq. 10 shows?

Not really. Suppose we know that the ##R_{tt}## equation holds in one local inertial frame. If we transform that equation to another local inertial frame, we will obtain an equation in the new (primed) frame that contains other components of the Ricci tensor besides ##R_{t' t'}##. Conversely, if we know that the equation for ##R_{t' t'}## holds in the primed frame, and we transform back to the unprimed frame, we will obtain an equation in the unprimed frame that contains other components of the Ricci tensor besides ##R_{tt}##. So knowing that the ##R_{tt}## equation holds in every local inertial frame is equivalent to knowing that all of the components of the Einstein Field Equation hold in any chosen local inertial frame.

exponent137 said:
2. Why all of Maxwell's equation's are contained in Gauss law and in ##\nabla \bf{B}##? Are both rotor equations unnecessary?

They're implied by the two divergence equations, in the same manner I described above. The equation ##\nabla \cdot \vec{E} = 4 \pi \rho## in one inertial frame, with charge density on the RHS, when transformed into another inertial frame, produces, in addition to the equation ##\nabla' \cdot \vec{E}' = 4 \pi \rho'## in the new (primed) frame, the equation ##\nabla' \times \vec{B}' - \partial \vec{E}' / \partial t' = 4 \pi \vec{J}'##, with current density in the new frame on the RHS. Similarly, ##\nabla \cdot \vec{B} = 0## in the original frame, when transformed into the new frame, gives, in additional to ##\nabla' \cdot \vec{B}' = 0##, the equation ##\nabla' \times \vec{E}' + \partial \vec{B}' / \partial t' = 0##. Try it! (Note that I'm using units in which ##c = 1##.)

exponent137 said:
Is ##\nabla \bf{B}## not a Gauss law?

Technically, it is, since it has the same form, but the source on the RHS is always zero, so it's not usually referred to that way (the term "Gauss's Law" is usually used for equations where the source on the RHS can be anything).

exponent137 said:
3 Is equation 11 mentioned as local inertial systems, not as approximation?

Yes.

exponent137 said:
4. Are transformation laws mentioned as pages 88 to 94 in http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019v1.pdf?

No. They're local Lorentz transformations between two local inertial frames that are both centered on the same event.

Last edited:
exponent137
On page 17, http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103044v5.pdf, is formula (6) and the third formula is similar as (6), but without ##u^\gamma##.
Above it, it is written
"with ##u## being a vector of length ##\epsilon## in ..."
It seems to me, that ##u=1##, not ##\epsilon##, otherwise part ##-R^j_{\beta j\delta} v^\beta v^\delta## would not be such as it is.

Do you think that this is written wrongly, or awkwardly?

exponent137 said:
Do you think that this is written wrongly, or awkwardly?

No. Equation (6) is valid in any coordinate chart. The equations below it, which are written in terms of ##t##, are in local inertial coordinates in which the center of the ball is at rest, and the vector ##u## is pointing in the ##j## spatial direction; so the index ##j## in the equations serves the same function as the vector ##u## does in equation (6). The vector ##u## is still of length ##\epsilon##, because that is the initial radius of the ball. Read the paragraph right after equation (6) carefully.

According to (6), (http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103044v5.pdf) and three equations below it is evident that ##R^\alpha_{\beta\gamma\delta} u^\gamma= R^j_{\beta\ j \delta} ##, if ##v##'s are not written. But, if ##u=\epsilon##, I expect ##R^\alpha_{\beta\gamma\delta} u^\gamma= \epsilon R^j_{\beta j \delta}##. Besides, according to figures in page 16, the distance between ##p## and ##q## is ##\epsilon u##, and top equation in page 17 includes ##\epsilon^2##, so why to introduce another ##\epsilon##?You should respect that my main knowledge about tensors is only from Carroll's book, so my knowledge is more intuitive than exact.

Thanks for explanation above.

Last edited:
victorneto said:
Someone could detail how ε² fall within the definition of a tensor, as follows:

Eq.(5) at http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103044v5.pdf)

Thanks for explanation above.
Hello,
After best thinking, concludes that ε², ε being the geodesic tiny parallelogram side, the right of which is made parallel displacement of vector w, is the area of that parallelogram infinisitesimal so that w'can be compared at the same point where w giving w'-w as a vector. Do ε tend to zero, will make infinisitesimal area be as small as it can. The Riemann tensor can, from this variation in vector w, be clearly defined, as is done in the article, excellent from Baez.
Sorry for writing, but I am Brazilian and not dominate as much English.

## 1. What is Baez's visualization of Ricci tensor?

Baez's visualization of Ricci tensor is a mathematical tool used to represent the curvature of space-time in the theory of general relativity. It involves representing the Ricci tensor, which is a mathematical object that describes the curvature of space-time, as a set of arrows pointing in different directions. This visualization helps to understand the complex concept of curvature in a more intuitive way.

## 2. How does Baez's visualization help in understanding the curvature of space-time?

Baez's visualization provides a more intuitive way of understanding the curvature of space-time by representing it as a set of arrows pointing in different directions. This allows for a visual representation of the changes in space-time curvature in different directions, making it easier to comprehend.

## 3. What are the applications of Baez's visualization in physics?

Baez's visualization of Ricci tensor has various applications in physics, particularly in the field of general relativity. It is used to understand the behavior of gravity and the curvature of space-time in the presence of massive objects such as planets and stars. It is also helpful in understanding the dynamics of black holes and the effects of gravitational waves.

## 4. How is Baez's visualization different from other methods of representing Ricci tensor?

Baez's visualization is different from other methods of representing Ricci tensor, such as mathematical equations or graphs, because it provides a more intuitive and visual representation of the concept of curvature in space-time. This allows for a better understanding of the complex mathematical concepts involved in general relativity.

## 5. Are there any limitations to Baez's visualization of Ricci tensor?

While Baez's visualization is a useful tool for understanding the curvature of space-time, it has some limitations. It is a simplified representation of a complex mathematical concept and may not accurately depict the true nature of space-time curvature. Additionally, it is limited to representing only the Ricci tensor and not other aspects of general relativity.

• Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
40
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
747
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
42
Views
4K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
2K