Euclidean metric and non-Cartesian systems

Click For Summary
The discussion addresses the limitations of defining Euclidean metrics and related concepts solely within Cartesian coordinate systems, highlighting the inaccuracies that arise in non-Cartesian systems. It emphasizes the importance of the metric tensor in Riemannian manifolds, which allows for the calculation of arclength and distances in generalized coordinates. The example of spherical polar coordinates illustrates how the Euclidean metric can be expressed differently, showcasing the need for adaptations in non-orthogonal systems. The conversation also seeks recommendations for introductory texts that cover these topics without delving into complex differential forms. Understanding these concepts is crucial for applying mathematical principles in various coordinate systems effectively.
rkaminski
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
OK. A problem is simple and probably very stupid... In many (most of) maths books things like Euclidean metric, norm, scalar product etc. are defined in Cartesian coordinate system (that is one which is orthonormal). But what would happen if one were to define all these quantities in non-Cartesian system? For example in many cases (books) the dot product is defined as sum of coordinates for two vectors. Such expression is definitely not true for non-orthogonal systems. Can anyone comment on such issues, perhaps some can propose some detailed reading?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Riemannian manifolds have a concept of a metric tensor g_{ij}, so that the element of arclength ds is given by <br /> ds^2 = g_{ij}dx^i dx^j in terms of generalized coordinates x_1, \dots, x_n, and the distance between two points is then the infimum of \int_C \frac{ds}{dt}\,dt = \int_C \sqrt{g_{ij}\dot x^i \dot x^j}\,dt over all continuous curves C between those two points.

Thus in spherical polar coordinates with x^1 = r, x^2 = \theta and x^3 = \phi the euclidean metric is given by <br /> \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> g_{11} = 1 &amp; g_{12} = 0 &amp; g_{13} = 0 \\<br /> g_{21} = 0 &amp; g_{22} = r^2 &amp; g_{23} = 0 \\<br /> g_{31} = 0 &amp; g_{32} = 0 &amp; g_{33} = r^2 \sin^2 \theta<br /> \end{array}<br /> so that the arclength element is given by <br /> ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2 \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2 + r^2 d\theta^2.<br /> Introductory texts on general relativity (such as Foster & Nightingale) should discuss this for the case of the (pseudo-)Riemannian geometry of space-time.
 
Last edited:
And does any author discuss these issues at the elementary level, not pointing out to the formalism of differential forms?
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
767
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K