Definition of isometry in components form

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of isometry in the context of differential geometry, particularly focusing on its expression in component form. Participants explore the implications of isometries on metrics and coordinate transformations, addressing both passive and active perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites a definition of isometry from Nakahara, stating that a diffeomorphism preserves the metric, but expresses confusion about the implications of this definition when considering different points.
  • Another participant clarifies that an isometry is a diffeomorphism between Riemannian manifolds that preserves the inner product between vectors in tangent spaces.
  • There is a discussion about the transformation of the metric under coordinate changes, with one participant attempting to prove the component form of the isometry condition.
  • Participants discuss the distinction between passive and active coordinate transformations, with one participant suggesting that the diffeomorphism can be viewed from a passive perspective by defining a new coordinate system.
  • Several participants engage in clarifying the pushforward of vectors under coordinate transformations and the implications for basis vectors under isometries.
  • Confusion arises regarding the notation used for diffeomorphisms and coordinate maps, with participants seeking clarification on the relationship between them.
  • One participant expresses appreciation for a referenced book on smooth manifolds, indicating a desire to further understand the concepts discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of understanding and confusion regarding the definitions and implications of isometries, particularly in relation to coordinate transformations. There is no clear consensus on the interpretation of certain aspects, and multiple viewpoints are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the transformation laws and the distinction between different types of transformations. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of definitions and notations that may lead to misunderstandings.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers in differential geometry, particularly those interested in the properties of isometries and their mathematical formulations in various contexts.

maxverywell
Messages
197
Reaction score
2
From the book of Nakahara "Geometry, Topology and Physics":

A diffeomorfism ##f:\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{M}## is an isometry if it preserves the metric:
##
f^{*}g_{f(p)}=g_{p}
##

In components this condition becomes:
##
\frac{\partial y^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial y^{\beta}}{\partial a^{\nu}}g_{\alpha\beta}(f(p))=g_{\mu\nu}(p)
##
where x and y are the coordinates of p and f (p), respectively.

I don't understand it. I know that a metric transforms under coordinate transformation ##x^{\mu}\to x'^{\mu}## (coordinates of the same point p - passive transformation). But here we have two different points. It doesn't make sense. I know that this has to do with passive vs active coordinate transformation but cannot understand it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That definition is not exactly complete. An isometry is a diffeomorphism ##\varphi: (M,g)\rightarrow (N,g')##, where ##M,N## are Riemannian manifolds, such that the pullback ##\varphi^*## satisfies ##g = \varphi^{*}g'##. The meaning of this is quite simple and clear. Let ##p\in M## and ##v,w\in T_pM##. If ##\varphi## is an isometry then by the above definition it immediately follows that ##g_{p}(v,w) = g'_{\varphi(p)}(\varphi_{*}v,\varphi_{*}w)## i.e. the isometry preserves the inner product between vectors when they are sent from one tangent space to another under the isometry.
 
maxverywell said:
##
\frac{\partial y^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial y^{\beta}}{\partial a^{\nu}}g_{\alpha\beta}(f(p))=g_{\mu\nu}(p)
##
where x and y are the coordinates of p and f (p), respectively.
The LHS is the metric in the new coordinate system at the new point. The equality just says the metric at the new point in the new coordinates is equal to the metric at the old point.
 
WannabeNewton, I have difficulty in proving the component form of the equation.
Bill_K said:
The LHS is the metric in the new coordinate system at the new point. The equality just says the metric at the new point in the new coordinates is equal to the metric at the old point.

Yeah. But this is what I want to prove.

Let me show you how I understand it and please let me know if I am correct.

Tensor transformation law:
##g'_{\mu\nu}(x')=\frac{\partial x^{\alpha}}{ \partial x'^{\mu}}\frac{\partial x^{\beta}}{\partial x'^{\nu}}g_{\alpha\beta}(x)##

where ##\{x^{\mu}\}## and ##\{x'^{\mu}\}## are the coordinate systems covering the neighborhood ##U\subset M## of the point ##p##. We call the transformation of the coordinates ##x\to x'## "passive" because we are referring to the same point.

The diffeomorfism ##f: M\to M## is an "active" coordinate transformation because we are "moving" points on the manifold, ##p\to f(p)##. Let's suppose that the coordinate system covering the neighborhood ##V## of the point ##f(p)##, is ##\{y^{\mu}\}##.

However, we can consider the diffeomorfism ##f## from an passive point of view (Wald) by defining a new coordinate system in the neighborhood ##O=f^{-1}[V]## of the point ##p##, ##\{x'^{\mu}\}##, by setting ##x'(q)=y(f(q))##, ##q\in O##.
For the metric tensor this means ##g'_{\alpha\beta}(x')=g_{\alpha\beta}(y)## (right?). So

##g_{\mu\nu}(x)=\frac{\partial x'^{\alpha}}{ \partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial x'^{\beta}}{\partial x^{\nu}}g'_{\alpha\beta}(x')=\frac{\partial x'^{\alpha}}{ \partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial x'^{\beta}}{\partial x^{\nu}}g_{\alpha\beta}(y)##

and because ##x'(p)=y(f(p))##, we have finally:

##g_{\mu\nu}(x)=\frac{\partial y^{\alpha}}{ \partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial y^{\beta}}{\partial x^{\nu}}g_{\alpha\beta}(y)##
 
Last edited:
g'_{\varphi(p)}(\varphi_{*}\partial_{i},\varphi_{*}\partial_{j}) = g'_{\varphi(p)}(\frac{\partial x^{l'}}{\partial x^i}\partial_{l'}, \frac{\partial x^{k'}}{\partial x^j}\partial_{k'}) = \frac{\partial x^{l'}}{\partial x^i} \frac{\partial x^{k'}}{\partial x^j}g'_{lk} = g_{ij}

EDIT: So yes, I agree with what you said for the case of coordinate transformations.
 
Last edited:
WannabeNewton said:
g'_{\varphi(p)}(\varphi_{*}\partial_{i},\varphi_{*}\partial_{j}) = g'_{\varphi(p)}(\frac{\partial x^{l'}}{\partial x^i}\partial_{l'}, \frac{\partial x^{k'}}{\partial x^j}\partial_{k'}) = \frac{\partial x^{l'}}{\partial x^i} \frac{\partial x^{k'}}{\partial x^j}g'_{lk} = g_{ij}

Are the coordinates x and x' the coordinates of p and f(p) respectively?

Also, why ##\varphi_{*}\partial_{i}=\frac{\partial x^{l'}}{\partial x^i}\partial_{l'}##?
 
Last edited:
That is what the pushforward does under a change of coordinates to the coordinate representation of the original coordinate basis.
 
Last edited:
So ##\phi_* \partial_i= \partial_i##?
This would mean that under isometries the basis vectors don't change.
 
maxverywell said:
So ##\phi_* \partial_i= \partial_i##?
This would mean that under isometries the basis vectors don't change.
Oops, let me be more precise. Let ##(U,\varphi)## and ##(V,\psi)## be two charts on a smooth manifold ##M## and let ##p\in U\cap V##. Say ##\varphi## has coordinate functions ##(x^{i})## and that ##\psi## has coordinate functions ##(x^{i'})##. The transition map ##(\psi\circ \varphi^{-1}):\varphi(U\cap V)\rightarrow \psi(U\cap V)## is given by ##(\psi\circ \varphi^{-1})(x) = (x^{1'}(x),...,x^{n'}(x))##. The pushforward of the transition map then gives ##(\psi\circ \varphi^{-1})_{*}\partial_{i}|_{\varphi(p)} = \frac{\partial x^{j'}}{\partial x^{i}}(\varphi(p))\partial_{j'}|_{\psi(p)}##.
 
  • #10
WannabeNewton said:
Oops, let me be more precise. Let ##(U,\varphi)## and ##(V,\psi)## be two charts on a smooth manifold ##M## and let ##p\in U\cap V##. Say ##\varphi## has coordinate functions ##(x^{i})## and that ##\psi## has coordinate functions ##(x^{i'})##. The transition map ##(\psi\circ \varphi^{-1}):\varphi(U\cap V)\rightarrow \psi(U\cap V)## is given by ##(\psi\circ \varphi^{-1})(x) = (x^{1'}(x),...,x^{n'}(x))##. The pushforward of the transition map then gives ##(\psi\circ \varphi^{-1})_{*}\partial_{i}|_{\varphi(p)} = \frac{\partial x^{j'}}{\partial x^{i}}(\varphi(p))\partial_{j'}|_{\psi(p)}##.

Actually I am more confused now.
At first you said that ##\varphi## is diffeomorphism ##\varphi:(M,g)\to (N,g')## and now it's the local coordinate map ##\varphi:M\to\mathbb{R}^n##. We want the push-forward ##\varphi_*##.
 
  • #11
If we are just talking about a change of coordinates, then all we care about is the transition map that goes from one chart to the other, at some point on the manifold; the diffeomorphism is the transition map, not the coordinate map itself (transition maps are automatically diffeomorphisms by definition of a smooth atlas). I was using a single symbol to denote the transition map before, which was certainly my mistake since I did the opposite in post #2, so I cleaned that up in post #9. See also Lee "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds" page 72.

EDIT: Let me rewrite the line here in a clearer fashion. ##g_{ij} = g(\partial_{i},\partial_{j}) = \frac{\partial x^{k'}}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial x^{l'}}{\partial x^{j}}g(\partial_{k'}, \partial_{l'}) = \frac{\partial x^{k'}}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial x^{l'}}{\partial x^{j}}g_{k'l'}##. The change of coordinate is taken into account implicitly from the way the coordinate basis transforms.

Now, for a general endomorphic isometry ##f:M\rightarrow M##, we will have the following: ##g_{ij}(p) = g_{f(p)}(f_{*}\partial_{i},f_{*}\partial_{j}) = g_{f(p)}(\frac{\partial f^{k}}{\partial x^{i}}\partial_{k}, \frac{\partial f^{l}}{\partial x^{j}}\partial_{l}) = \frac{\partial f^{k}}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial f^{l}}{\partial x^{j}}g_{kl}(f(p))##

What was confusing me before with regards to your notation is that you kept mixing up coordinate transformation notation with that of endomorphic isometries so I couldn't tell what exactly it was you wanted.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Thnx WannabeNewton, especially for mentioning the Lee's book, it's very nice. and I started reading it.
 
  • #13
maxverywell said:
and I started reading it.
Good, good. I'm sure you'll like it! Don't forget to have fun with it :). I should warn you though that Lee's book assumes you have done topology (mostly point-set topology and some algebraic for the later parts) so if you haven't done topology before then you might want to brush up on that first. Cheers!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
949
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K