Undergrad Invariant properties of metric tensor

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the invariant properties of the metric tensor under basis vector transformations. It clarifies that while the metric tensor is dependent on the choice of basis vectors, certain properties remain invariant and describe the underlying space itself. The Minkowski metric is highlighted as an example, with its components often presented without specifying the basis vectors used. The conversation also addresses the relationship between the metric tensor and transformation matrices, noting that Lorentz transformations preserve the form of the Minkowski metric. Ultimately, the metric tensor's invariance under specific transformations is essential for understanding the symmetries of spacetime.
olgerm
Gold Member
Messages
532
Reaction score
35
Which properties of metric tensor are invariant of basevectors transforms? I know that metric tensor depends of basevectors, but are there properties of metric tensor, that are basevector invariant and describe space itself?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
olgerm said:
Which properties of metric tensor are invariant of basevectors transforms? I know that metric tensor depends of basevectors, but are there properties of metric tensor, that are basevector invariant and describe space itself?
A metric tensor ##g## above an affine point space ##A## with a real translation space ##V## is a map form ##A## into the space of scalar products on ##V ##, i.e. ##g(P)\, : \,V \times V \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}## is a symmetric, positive definite bilinear form on ##V## for every ##P\in A##.

No basis vectors anywhere around.
 
Or more generally, nothing about any tensor is basis dependent except its components given a particular basis.
 
##g_{i;j}=e_i\otimes e_j##.

in base 1:
##g_{i;j}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec{e_0}\cdot\vec{e_0}&\vec{e_0}\cdot\vec{e_1} \\
\vec{e_1}\cdot\vec{e_0}&\vec{e_1}\cdot\vec{e_1}
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}
1&0 \\
0&1
\end{bmatrix}##

in base 2:
##\vec{e´_0}=2*\vec{e_0}##
##\vec{e´_1}=\vec{e_1}##

##g_{i;j}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec{e´_0}\cdot\vec{e´_0}&\vec{e´_0}\cdot\vec{e´_1} \\
\vec{e´_1}\cdot\vec{e´_0}&\vec{e´_1}\cdot\vec{e´_1}
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}
(2*\vec{e_0})\cdot(2*\vec{e_0})&\vec{e_0}\cdot\vec{e_1} \\
\vec{e_1}\cdot\vec{e_0}&\vec{e_1}\cdot\vec{e_1}
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}
4&0\\
0&1
\end{bmatrix}##
 
This is the old difficulty to distinguish vectors and their coordinates. It is meaningless to ask about a description of a vector (matrix, tensor) once you described them by coordinates. Coordinates are the tool, not the object. It is just difficult to describe the object without coordinates, but the definition in post #2 does it, namely as a map.
 
  • Like
Likes DEvens
fresh_42 said:
their coordinates
Or their components :rolleyes:

But I agree.
 
for example minkowsky metric tensor is often given only by components
##
\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & 0 &0 &0 \\
0& 1 & 0 &0 \\
0& 0 & 1 &0 \\
0& 0 & 0 &1
\end{bmatrix}
##
without specifiyng base vectors. Do they assume some specific base vectors? Which ones?

Is there something invariant in the components?
How can spaces with different elemens be compared by their metric tensors if they have different elements and therefore we can't choose same basevectors there?
 
Last edited:
The standard assumption on Minkowski space is that you are using a set of standard affine Minkowski coordinates.
 
Orodruin said:
The standard assumption on Minkowski space is that you are using a set of standard affine Minkowski coordinates.
What are these?

There should be something invariant in components of metric tensor because it is probably impossible to choose base where minkowsky metric has components
##\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 &0 &0 \\
0& 1 & 0 &0 \\
0& 0 & 1 &0 \\
0& 0 & 0 &1
\end{bmatrix}##
 
  • #10
olgerm said:
it is probably impossible to choose base where minkowsky metric has components
##\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 &0 &0 \\
0& 1 & 0 &0 \\
0& 0 & 1 &0 \\
0& 0 & 0 &1
\end{bmatrix}##
I was wrng it is possible if ##\vec{e_0'}=\sqrt{-1}*\vec{e_0}##
 
  • #11
Is there any relation between metric tensor and transformation matrix? Can I derive lorentz tranformation matrix from minkowsky metric tensor?
 
  • #12
olgerm said:
Is there any relation between metric tensor and transformation matrix? Can I derive lorentz tranformation matrix from minkowsky metric tensor?
The metric is a rank 2 tensor under general coordinate transformations, and hence transforms as such (with "two transformation matrices"). The Lorentz transformations are those transformations which keep the Minkowski metric form invariant. These special transformations, which are a subset of the general coordinate transformations, connect al those observers who would use the very same components for the Minkowski metric and we call them inertial observers. So yes, you can derive the Lorentz transformations from this property ("which transformations keep the form of the metric the same? "). It's covered in any basic book about GR, I guess.

Technically, one says that "the isometries of a metric break the general coordinate transformations down to a subgroup of them." This means that the metric transforms as a tensor under general coordinate transformations, but is kept invariant under a subgroup of this group. And those form the isometries (=symmetries) of the spacetime this metric describes.

Hope this helps ;)
 
  • #13
haushofer said:
So yes, you can derive the Lorentz transformations from this property ("which transformations keep the form of the metric the same? "). It's covered in any basic book about GR, I guess.
Any basic book on SR should suffice too. 😉
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
888
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K