Induced Metric of a 2-Sphere: Why i≠j?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pdxautodidact
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induced Metric
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the induced metric for a 2-sphere in three-dimensional space, focusing on the implications of the Jacobian matrix and the conditions under which certain terms become superfluous. Participants explore different parameterizations and their effects on the induced metric, raising questions about the validity of the results and the mathematical reasoning involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the transpose of the Jacobian matrix multiplied by itself yields the induced metric, questioning why the condition i≠j appears superfluous.
  • Another participant suggests trying a different parameterization to explore its effects on the induced metric.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about whether the proposed parameterization actually describes a sphere, noting that they included an r term for generality.
  • Concerns are raised about the singularity of the induced metric matrix derived by one participant, questioning its validity as a metric.
  • Corrections are made regarding the terms in the induced metric matrix, with one participant stating that a specific term is incorrect.
  • After re-evaluating the calculations, a participant finds a discrepancy in their earlier work and seeks clarification on the correct form of g_22.
  • Another participant suggests that the correct form of g_22 should yield r^2 (1 + sin^2 θ), prompting a re-check of the algebra involved.
  • A participant acknowledges an earlier mistake in combining terms and expresses clarity on why the results hold true in hindsight.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the parameterization or the induced metric calculations, with multiple competing views and uncertainties remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations depend on specific parameterizations and may involve unresolved algebraic steps. The discussion reflects varying levels of confidence in the derived metrics and their interpretations.

pdxautodidact
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
So, by accident, while deriving the induced metric for a sphere in 3 dimensions I realized that the transpose of the jacobi matrix multiplied by the jacobi matrix (considering it as 3 row/column vectors)will work out the induced metric. Why is it that i≠j ends up being superfluous. One would have X=a 2-sphere in parameterized coordinates, and then g_ij= <X_;i,X_;j>. Thus one would compute <X_;1,X_;2> and the same for 2,3. Is this because the embedded manifold is an immersion, or is there something else? Thanks for any elucidation and best.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try a different parametrization and see what happens:

\begin{align}x &amp;= \sin \theta \cos (\phi + \theta), \\ y &amp;= \sin \theta \sin (\phi + \theta), \\ z &amp;= \cos \theta.\end{align}
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Does that, in fact, parameterize a sphere? It's not obvious to me. I included an r term in the coordinates since I want it in general, not the only the unit case. The induced metric was:
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & r^2 sin^2\theta & r^2 sin^2\theta \\
0 & r^2 sin^2\theta & r^2 sin^2\theta
\end{array}
\right)
$$

I haven't had time to write it out again, so I could have made a mistake, but this looks bad to me. The matrix is singular, and thus it can't be a metric, correct? Assuming this is correct, I don't see how the Jacobian will account for i ≠ j. I'll work through it again. Thanks
 
The term in the center of your matrix is wrong.
 
Okay, so I went through it again:

let X be the 2 sphere with your suggested parameterization

$$
X_{;\theta} = \left(
\begin{array}{c} x^1 = rcos\theta cos \left(\phi + \theta \right) - rsin \theta sin \left(\phi + \theta \right) \\
x^2 = rcos \theta sin \left( \phi + \theta \right) + rsin\theta cos \left(\phi + \theta \right) \\
x^3 = -rsin\theta
\end{array}
\right)
$$

When I dot that with itself I got the same answer again. Mathematica, with a bit of tinkering, gave me

$$ r^2 (Cos(\phi)^2 + Cos(2 \theta + \phi)^2 + sin(\theta)^2) $$

What should g_22 be?
 
You should end up with

r^2 (1 + \sin^2 \theta)

Check your algebra again. You shouldn't really need Mathematica, it's pretty easy to do.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Yeah, I combined the trig terms into a 0 instead of a 1, so that's it. I see why it works for all cases now, in hindsight it's obvious. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K