I Ex. 19 Gauge Fields, Knots & Gravity: Is Rotation Correct?

ergospherical
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
1,384
Wanted to check with you guys that I'm not going crazy...

Exercise 19: Let ##\phi : \mathbf{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbf{R}^2## be a counterclockwise rotation by angle ##\theta##. Let ##\partial_x, \partial_y## be the coordinate vector fields on ##\mathbf{R}^2##. Show, at any point of ##\mathbf{R}^2##, that ##\phi_*\partial_x = (\cos{\theta})\partial_x - (\sin{\theta}) \partial_y## and also ##\phi_*\partial_y = (\sin{\theta})\partial_x + (\cos{\theta})\partial_y##

The effect of the pushforward is just a rotation of the vectors, so presumably one would instead expect ##\phi_* \partial_x = (\cos{\theta})\partial_x + (\sin{\theta})\partial_y##, right?

The rotation is ##(x,y) \mapsto \phi(x,y) = (x\cos{\theta} - y\sin{\theta}, \ x\sin{\theta} + y\cos{\theta})##. Let ##f \in C^{\infty}(\mathbf{R}^2)## be a test function, then the pushforward of ##\partial_x## is\begin{align*}
((\phi_* \partial_x)(f))(\phi(x),\phi(y)) &= (\partial_x(\phi^* f))(x,y) \\
&= (\partial_x (f \circ \phi))(x,y) \\
\end{align*}One can determine the ##x##-component of ##\phi_* \partial_x## by letting ##f=x##,\begin{align*}
((\phi_* \partial_x)(x))(\phi(x),\phi(y)) &= (\partial_x(x \circ \phi))(x,y) \\
&= (\partial_x(x\cos{\theta} - y\sin{\theta}))(x,y) \\
&= \cos{\theta}
\end{align*}Similarly, put ##f=y## to obtain ##((\phi_* \partial_x)(y))(\phi(x),\phi(y)) = \sin{\theta}##. Then\begin{align*}
\phi_* \partial_x = (\cos{\theta})\partial_x + (\sin{\theta})\partial_y
\end{align*}as before. I haven't misread something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with your conclusion. Alternatively, consider curve ##\gamma: t \mapsto (t,a)##, which has ##\partial_x## as its tangent vector. You will find that ##\phi \circ \gamma (t) = (t \cos\theta - a \sin\theta, t \sin\theta + a \cos\theta)##, which clearly has the tangent vector ##\cos\theta \partial_x + \sin\theta \partial_y##.
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical
Great, thanks!
 
Is there an errata for the errata? :wink:
1641022076628.png
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
913
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
976
Replies
2
Views
732
Back
Top