Comparing tensors at different points

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pencilvester
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Points Tensors
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the complexities of comparing tensors at different points on a curved manifold, specifically addressing the limitations of using geodesics for this purpose. The conversation highlights that while a unique geodesic exists between two points in a local convex neighborhood, this does not guarantee an equivalence relation among tensors across multiple points. The participants emphasize that the lack of a natural path for parallel transport leads to inconsistencies in tensor comparison, particularly when considering multiple points.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of curved manifolds and their properties
  • Familiarity with tensor spaces and their mathematical definitions
  • Knowledge of geodesics and parallel transport in differential geometry
  • Concept of equivalence relations in mathematical contexts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of curvature on tensor comparisons in differential geometry
  • Explore the concept of parallel transport and its applications in tensor analysis
  • Study the role of geodesics in defining equivalence relations among tensors
  • Investigate alternative methods for tensor comparison in non-Euclidean spaces
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students of differential geometry who are interested in the intricacies of tensor analysis and the challenges of comparing tensors across different points on curved manifolds.

Pencilvester
Messages
214
Reaction score
52
Hello PF, I have a question about comparing tensors at different points. Carroll says, “there is no natural way to uniquely move a vector from one tangent space to another; we can always parallel-transport it, but the result depends on the path, and there is no natural choice of which path to take.” I understand that this is the general case for any two points on a curved manifold, but what if we limit ourselves with the requirement that the two points be in the same local convex neighborhood? If there’s only one unique geodesic between the two points, that seems like a pretty natural preferred path to me. So is there a reason that this method isn’t used (at least for points in the same local convex neighborhood)? Or is this method used, and I just haven’t read about it yet?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pencilvester said:
I understand that this is the general case for any two points on a curved manifold, but what if we limit ourselves with the requirement that the two points be in the same local convex neighborhood?
Not unless the curvature is zero in that neighbourhood.

Pencilvester said:
If there’s only one unique geodesic between the two points, that seems like a pretty natural preferred path to me.
If you only had two points, that would be natural. But you do not have only two points and typically you would like comparisons to imply an equivalence relation, i.e., if ##A_p \in V_p##, where ##V_p## is one of the tensor spaces at ##p##, then if ##A_p \sim A_q## and ##A_q \sim A_r##, then ##A_p \sim A_r##. This generally does not hold if you use the geodesic between ##p## and ##q## to define the relation between ##V_p## and ##V_q##, etc., simply because the geodesic from ##p## to ##r## does not need to be the composition of the geodesics from ##p## to ##q## and from ##q## to ##r##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pencilvester and Dale
Orodruin said:
if ##A_p \in V_p##, where ##V_p## is one of the tensor spaces at ##p##, then if ##A_p \sim A_q## and ##A_q \sim A_r##, then ##A_p \sim A_r##. This generally does not hold if you use the geodesic between ##p## and ##q## to define the relation between ##V_p## and ##V_q##, etc., simply because the geodesic from ##p## to ##r## does not need to be the composition of the geodesics from ##p## to ##q## and from ##q## to ##r##.
Makes sense, thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K