Fundamental definition of extrinsic curvature

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of extrinsic curvature of a hypersurface within the context of Lorentzian manifolds. Participants explore various definitions, their implications, and the nuances involved in different contexts, particularly concerning the role of vorticity and congruences of curves.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a specific definition of extrinsic curvature as $$K_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_n~h_{ab}$$, questioning the presence of a minus sign in the expression.
  • Another participant argues against the notion of a "fundamental" definition, suggesting that all equivalent definitions hold equal weight, though some may be more convenient.
  • A later reply acknowledges the ambiguity in the term "fundamental" and discusses the tangential rate of change of the normal to a hypersurface, raising questions about the appropriate derivative to use (covariant vs. Lie derivative).
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the specific request for a definition, indicating a possible misunderstanding of the new concepts being discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of extrinsic curvature, with multiple competing views and interpretations presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of defining extrinsic curvature, particularly in relation to the assumptions about vorticity and the choice of derivative. There is an acknowledgment that definitions can vary based on context, and the implications of these variations remain unresolved.

PLuz
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
My question is quite simple: what is the fundamental definition of extrinsic curvature of an hypersurface?

Let me explain why I have not just copied one definition from the abundant literature. The specific structure on the Lorentzian manifold that I'm considering does not imply that an hypersurface orthogonal congruence of time-like curves has zero vorticity and the many definitions that I've seen assume this fact. My guess is that the fundamental definition should be:

$$K_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_n~h_{ab}~,$$

where ##h_{ab}## represents the induced metric on the hypersurface and ##\mathcal{L}_n## the Lie derivative along the normal to the hypersurface. By the way, should there be a minus sign in the above expression, I have seen both cases and it should not be irrelevant?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no such thing as "the fundamental" definition of anything. Any two equivalent definitions are equally fundamental although one may be more convenient in some situations.

The definition of extrinsic curvature does not even mention vorticity or a congruence of curves.
 
martinbn said:
There is no such thing as "the fundamental" definition of anything. Any two equivalent definitions are equally fundamental although one may be more convenient in some situations.

The definition of extrinsic curvature does not even mention vorticity or a congruence of curves.

Indeed, a definition is a definition. Yet, definitions can be made broader, or more generic. Maybe fundamental was a bad choice of words.
In either case, I understand the extrinsic curvature as the tangential rate of change of the normal to an hypersurface. Now, the rate of change: is it computed using the covariant derivative, the Lie derivative? Just so happens that in the context that is usually studied in the literature, it does not matter, both will define the same quantity that, however, does not have to be the case, in general. So, there must be a more generic - fundamental - way of defining the extrinsic curvature. A practical example, I have seen defining the extrinsic curvature of an hypersurface as ##K_{ab}=h_a^i h_b^j \nabla_{(i}n_{j)} ## but in general this is not the same as the expression in the original post... Care to help me?
 
I am not sure what you are looking for. The most general definition or the equivalence of the different definitions. Clearly something bothers you, but I am not sure what. It could be that you are not yet used to the new notion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K