How is the S^3 metric defined by a unit vector and coordinate changes?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sphere Vector
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 2K views
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
We have the (I think FRW) metric in the coordinates
[tex]y^{0}=t,~~y^{1}=\psi,~~y^{2}=\theta,~~y^{3}=\varphi[/tex]

[tex]g_{00}=1,~~g_{00}= - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} ,~~ g_{00}= - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} \sin^{2}\psi ,~~g_{00}= - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} \sin^{2}\psi sin^{2}\theta[/tex]

Suppose we have define a unit vector [itex]n \in \mathbb{R}^{4}[/itex] such that:

[tex]n= ( \cos\psi , \sin\psi \sin\theta\cos\varphi, \sin\psi \sin\theta \sin\varphi, \sin\psi \cos\theta )[/tex]

So far I was able to show that (by doing the derivative calculations- is there any faster way one can work?)

[tex]g_{ij} = - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} \sum_{A=1}^{4} \frac{\partial n^{A}}{∂y^{i}}\frac{\partial n^{A}}{\partial y^{j}}[/tex]

So I would like to interpret this result... I need some confirmation of how I interpreted it :)
Suppose you have the vector [itex]n[/itex]. The metric is then by the equation above, defined by how the [itex]n[/itex] vector changes [itex]\partial n[/itex] along the change of the i-th coordinate [itex]∂y^{i}[/itex]. As I wrote it, by the module of the velocity of [itex]n[/itex] wrt [itex]y^{i}[/itex]. Also tried to do a grid diagram which I think is correct for [itex]S^{2}[/itex] of coordinates [itex](\theta,\varphi)[/itex], just imagining the generalization of it with a 3rd coordinate ##\psi##.
Finally the metric is scaling by the flow of time (or [itex]y^{0}[/itex]-coord) so it's more like, as time passes, we get different images of a 3-sphere, each having its "grid" rescaled by some factor.

Is that correct? Do you think I'm missing something important?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Better now? Well the form of it doesn't make the big difference since my maths were correct and the interpretation has to do with the final equation, but thanks :) that way other people might understand it better.
 
Another question... I did it for my own fun... because I said about that thing with "images" of sphere, and I wanted to see how , by the flow of "time", the metric would change.

Suppose I have at time [itex]y^{0}=t[/itex] that:

[itex]g_{ij}(t, y^{a})= - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} |n_{,i} \cdot n_{,j}|[/itex]

And I let time flow, to [itex]t' = t + \delta t[/itex]

Then:

[itex]g_{ij}'=g_{ij}(t+\delta t, y^{a})= g_{ij}(t, y^{a}) + \delta t \frac{\partial g_{ij}(t, y^{a})}{\partial t}= g_{ij}(t, y^{a}) -\frac{2}{\alpha} \delta t f(t) \dot{f}(t) |n_{,i} \cdot n_{,j}| = g_{ij}(t, y^{a}) -\frac{2 \dot{f}(t)}{\alpha f(t)} \delta t f^{2}(t) |n_{,i} \cdot n_{,j}|[/itex]

Inserting the Hubble's parameter [itex]H= \frac{\dot{f}}{f}[/itex]

[itex]g_{ij}'=g_{ij}(t, y^{a}) + \delta t 2 H(t) g_{ij}(t, y^{a})[/itex]

Or

[itex]g_{ij}(t+\delta t, y^{a})=(1+ 2H(t) \delta t) g_{ij}(t, y^{a})[/itex]

Could I write with that:

[itex]\delta_{t} g_{ij} = 2 H(t) \delta t g_{ij}[/itex]

Or equivalently:
[itex]g_{ij}(t', y^{a})= e^{2 H(t) (t'-t)} g_{ij} (t, y^{a})[/itex]
?

Meaning that the Hubble's parameter is somewhat related to the generator of the translation of time for the spatial components of the metric?
However that's not true for the [itex]g_{00}=1[/itex] because it's constant.
 
ChrisVer said:
We have the (I think FRW) metric in the coordinates
[tex]y^{0}=t,~~y^{1}=\psi,~~y^{2}=\theta,~~y^{3}=\varphi[/tex]

[tex]g_{00}=1,~~g_{00}= - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} ,~~ g_{00}= - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} \sin^{2}\psi ,~~g_{00}= - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} \sin^{2}\psi sin^{2}\theta[/tex]

Suppose we have define a unit vector [itex]n \in \mathbb{R}^{4}[/itex] such that:

[tex]n= ( \cos\psi , \sin\psi \sin\theta\cos\varphi, \sin\psi \sin\theta \sin\varphi, \sin\psi \cos\theta )[/tex]

So far I was able to show that (by doing the derivative calculations- is there any faster way one can work?)

[tex]g_{ij} = - \frac{f^{2}(t)}{\alpha} \sum_{A=1}^{4} \frac{\partial n^{A}}{∂y^{i}}\frac{\partial n^{A}}{\partial y^{j}}[/tex]

So I would like to interpret this result... I need some confirmation of how I interpreted it :)
Suppose you have the vector [itex]n[/itex]. The metric is then by the equation above, defined by how the [itex]n[/itex] vector changes [itex]\partial n[/itex] along the change of the i-th coordinate [itex]∂y^{i}[/itex]. As I wrote it, by the module of the velocity of [itex]n[/itex] wrt [itex]y^{i}[/itex]. Also tried to do a grid diagram which I think is correct for [itex]S^{2}[/itex] of coordinates [itex](\theta,\varphi)[/itex], just imagining the generalization of it with a 3rd coordinate ##\psi##.
Finally the metric is scaling by the flow of time (or [itex]y^{0}[/itex]-coord) so it's more like, as time passes, we get different images of a 3-sphere, each having its "grid" rescaled by some factor.

Is that correct? Do you think I'm missing something important?

You posted four different ##g_{00}##, so I think you've not specified the metric correctly.

Also, when you use the Latin indices ##i,j## do they go from 1-3 or from 0-3?