Finding the Metric of a Surface

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryanonymous
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Surface
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on finding the metric of a surface that is two-dimensional and immersed in three-dimensional space. Participants explore different methods for deriving the metric, including the use of Cartesian and polar coordinates, and the concept of induced metrics from higher-dimensional spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the metric of a surface described in three coordinates (x, y, z) and expressed in two coordinates (r, phi) results in a two-dimensional or three-dimensional metric.
  • Another participant asserts that since the metric is of the surface, it is a two-dimensional metric, and introduces the concept of an embedding mapping to relate the surface to three-dimensional space.
  • A third participant provides a method for calculating the metric using the first fundamental form, detailing the components of the metric tensor and the line element.
  • A later reply reiterates the initial question and suggests two approaches to finding the metric, emphasizing the use of constraints from three-dimensional space to derive the induced line element on the surface.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the metric of the surface is two-dimensional, but there are multiple approaches and methods discussed for deriving it. The discussion remains open with various techniques being proposed without a consensus on a single method.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific mathematical formulations and methods, but there is no resolution on the best approach or any assumptions that may affect the derivation of the metric.

Ryanonymous
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
So say I want to find the metric of a surface, which is obviously 2 dimensions, which is immersed in a 3 dimensional space.

The surface is described by 3 coordinates (x,y,z) in Cartesian, but can be expressed using 2 (r, phi) in polar.

Does this mean you'd end up with a 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional metric?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since you say the metric OF the surface, this is a 2d metric.

Consider an embedding mapping f of your 2D surface in 3D:

f: (u^1,u^2) -> (x^1,x^2,x^3)

where u^1 = r, u^2 = phi, x ^1 = x, x^2 = y, x^3 = z. This would simply be the function that for each (r,phi) gives you the corresponding triple (x,y,z). Also we define components of f by

f^1 (u^1,u^2) = x^1
f^2 (u^1,u^2) = x^2
f^3 (u^1,u^2) = x^3

Then the "induced metric" on your surface can be expressed as:

h_ab = sum_ij df^i/du^a df^j/du^b g_ij

where g_ij is the metric on your 3D space (presumably just the Kronecker delta if your 3D space is Euklidean?), and sum_ij means a sum of all values of i and j. The indices a,b only have the possible values 1,2 since the u-coordinates only have two components, r and phi.

This metric simply reflects the "restriction" of the 3D metric to the 2d surface.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_metric

Torquil
 
Hi Ryan(onomous),

Consider f(x,y) = z, where x=r\cos\phi and y=r\sin\phi,
we calculate the metric via the 1st fundamental form on the surface:

g_{11} = E = x_{,r}x_{,r}+y_{,r}y_{,r}+z_{,r}z_{,r},
g_{12} = F = x_{,r}x_{,\phi}+y_{,r}y_{,\phi}+z_{,r}z_{,\phi},
g_{22} = G = x_{,\phi}x_{,\phi}+y_{,\phi}y_{,\phi}+z_{,\phi}z_{,\phi}.

The line element takes the form

ds^2 = g_{a b} dx^a dx^b = E dr^2 + 2F dr d\phi + G d\phi^2.

That should do it.
 
Last edited:
Ryanonymous said:
So say I want to find the metric of a surface, which is obviously 2 dimensions, which is immersed in a 3 dimensional space.

The surface is described by 3 coordinates (x,y,z) in Cartesian, but can be expressed using 2 (r, phi) in polar.

Does this mean you'd end up with a 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional metric?

Thanks.

You can do this in two ways; either use the explicit pullback from the space R3 to the surface, or "the easy way".

The easy way is the following. Take for example a sphere S2 in a space R3. The space R3 has as line element

[itex] ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2[/itex]

Our sphere S2 is parametrized in R3 as

[itex] x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2[/itex]
where R is the radius of the sphere. This constraint cuts down the number of independent coordinates from 3 to two. Now, for instance, you can "take the differential of this equation" and write

[itex] 2x*dx + 2y*dy + 2z*dz = 0[/itex]

because R is a constant. If you now rewrite this in terms of, for example, dx = ... and plug this into the expression for the line element of R3, you have found the "induced line element on the sphere by R3". Hope this helps :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K