Explore Coordinate Dependent Statements in Orodruin's Insight

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
5 replies · 1K views
George Keeling
Gold Member
Messages
183
Reaction score
42
TL;DR
Peculiar Coordinate conversion in Orodruin's Insight "Explore Coordinate Dependent Statements in an Expanding Universe"
I am studying @Orodruin's Insight "Explore Coordinate Dependent Statements in an Expanding Universe". It looks pretty interesting. About three pages in it reads "expanding ##x^a## to second order in ##\xi^\mu## generally leads to$$
x^a=e_\mu^a\xi^\mu+c_{\mu\nu}^a\xi^\mu\xi^\nu+\mathcal{O}_3
$$where we have introduced the notation ##\mathcal{O}_n## for terms that are of order three [##n##?] or higher in the coordinates." I don't know why one would expand ##x^a## like that.

##x^a## are general curved coordinates, ##\xi^\mu## are local Minkowski coordinates at some point ##p##. ##e_\mu## are orthonormal vectors at ##p## in the ##\xi^\mu## system. They might be basis vectors, I am not sure. ##e_\mu^a## are the coordinates of ##e_\mu## in the ##x^a## system. ##c_{\mu\nu}^a## is a mysterious thing to be discovered. It turns out to be not a tensor but more like a Christoffel symbol. I think. We are also told earlier that $$
e_\mu^a=\frac{\partial x^a}{\partial\xi^\mu}
$$so the first part of the first equation is $$
x^a=\frac{\partial x^a}{\partial\xi^\mu}\xi^\mu
$$which is just the tensor transformation law.

Where does the first equation come from and why don't we use the ordinary tensor transformation equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The ##\underline{u}_{\mu}## denote a tetrad, i.e., four orthonormal vectors (in the sense of the Lorentzian metric) with the ##\xi_{\mu}## Gaussian coordinates at a spacetime point. The ##e_{\mu}^a## are the components of the ##\mu##-th tetrad vector wrt. the holonomous basis defined by the coordinates ##x^a##.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: George Keeling
George Keeling said:
Where does the first equation come from and why don't we use the ordinary tensor transformation equation?
Because ##x^a## are general curved coordinates, not tensor components. In general coordinates, differentials of coordinates are tensors but coordinates are not.

The first equation is, in effect, the first few terms of a Taylor series.
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and George Keeling
DrGreg said:
Because ##x^a## are general curved coordinates, not tensor components.
I realized that last night o:). Luckily I didn't get up. It is the second time in as many weeks that I have tripped up on the T T equation!
DrGreg said:
The first equation is, in effect, the first few terms of a Taylor series.
I had some old notes on the Taylor series for a function of two variables and, when extended to four, it works for an expansion at the origin and gives Orodruin's equation perfectly 💡. Thank you!
 
To remember the Taylor expansion in multiple coordinates note that you can write it in terms of the operator exponential function as
$$f(\vec{x}+\vec{a})=\exp(a^j \partial_j) f(\vec{x}).$$
Now just Taylor expand the exp and note that all ##\partial_j## commute with each other (in the appropriate domain of these differential operators of course ;-)):
$$\exp(a^j \partial_j) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!} (a^j \partial_j)^k = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!} a^{j_1} \partial_{j_1} \cdots a^{j_k}\partial_k.$$
Then the Taylor series around ##\vec{x}## reads [Edit in view of #6]
$$f(\vec{x}+\vec{a})=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!} a^{j_1} \cdots a^{j_k} \partial_{j_1} \cdots \partial_{j_k} f(\vec{x}).$$
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd, George Keeling and etotheipi
I guess the last equation under
vanhees71 said:
Then the Taylor series around ##\vec{x}## reads
should have less brackets on the left and more arrows on the right:$$
f\left(\vec{x}+\vec{a}\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{k!}a^{j_1}\cdots a^{j_k}\partial_{j_1}\cdots\partial_{j_k}f\left(\vec{x}\right)}
$$I expanded the ##k=2## term in that for two dimensions and it came out just like my old notes on the Taylor series for a function of two variables. My notes improve. Thank you!
PS I originally found the expansion on math.libretexts.org. It's at equation (6) there.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71