Lie Derivatives vs Parallel Transport

In summary, parallel transport and Lie derivatives are two different ways to transport tensors along a curved manifold. Parallel transport is used to describe the worldlines of freely falling objects, while Lie derivatives are used for other physical problems, such as keeping a telescope oriented in a specific direction while hovering above a gravitating body. While both approaches may seem similar, they result in different answers and have distinct purposes. It is important to understand the differences between the two in order to properly solve a physics problem.
  • #1
Silviu
624
11
Hello! In my GR class we were introduced to the parallel transport as the way in which 2 tensors can be compared with each other at different points (and how one reaches the curvature tensor from here). I was wondering why can't one use Lie derivatives, instead of parallel transport. As far as I understand, both define the transport of a tensor along a vector field, so why is one used instead of the other i.e. why is Lie derivative not good to define directional derivatives on a manifold? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Silviu said:
I was wondering why can't one use Lie derivatives,

You can, but you'll get a different answer than you would using parallel transport. (And those two possibilities are not the only ones: in general there are an infinite number of possible ways to transport vectors/tensors between points in a curved manifold.) So the question is, which answer is the one you want to use? And the answer to that question depends on what physical problem you are trying to solve.

The physical problem for which "parallel transport" is the right answer is the problem: which curves are geodesics? The answer to that is, they are curves that parallel transport their tangent vectors along themselves. And that turns out to be the "right" answer because those curves turn out to be the ones that describe the worldlines of freely falling objects, i.e., weightless objects, feeling no acceleration. Since objects moving solely under the influence of "gravity" are weightless, these weightless, freely falling worldlines are the ones that tell us about the geometry of spacetime, so GR gives them a special status and uses parallel transport for that reason.

However, there are other physical problems for which "Lie derivative" is the right answer. Here's one: suppose I have an observer "hovering" at a fixed altitude above a large gravitating body like a planet or star (and not in orbit, his angular coordinates are also fixed, so he is firing a rocket or otherwise under acceleration). This person wants to keep a telescope oriented directly radially outward, i.e., in the opposite direction from the planet/star. How will the spacelike vector that describes the direction the telescope is pointing be transported along the observer's worldline? The answer is, using the Lie derivative (the more usual name for this in GR is "Fermi-Walker transport").

In your GR class they probably were only considering the former type of problem, not the latter, which is why they gave "parallel transport" as the answer. But it's good to be aware that there are other problems you will eventually encounter where other types of transport are relevant.
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn, vanhees71, strangerep and 1 other person
  • #3
PeterDonis said:
You can, but you'll get a different answer than you would using parallel transport. (And those two possibilities are not the only ones: in general there are an infinite number of possible ways to transport vectors/tensors between points in a curved manifold.) So the question is, which answer is the one you want to use? And the answer to that question depends on what physical problem you are trying to solve.

The physical problem for which "parallel transport" is the right answer is the problem: which curves are geodesics? The answer to that is, they are curves that parallel transport their tangent vectors along themselves. And that turns out to be the "right" answer because those curves turn out to be the ones that describe the worldlines of freely falling objects, i.e., weightless objects, feeling no acceleration. Since objects moving solely under the influence of "gravity" are weightless, these weightless, freely falling worldlines are the ones that tell us about the geometry of spacetime, so GR gives them a special status and uses parallel transport for that reason.

However, there are other physical problems for which "Lie derivative" is the right answer. Here's one: suppose I have an observer "hovering" at a fixed altitude above a large gravitating body like a planet or star (and not in orbit, his angular coordinates are also fixed, so he is firing a rocket or otherwise under acceleration). This person wants to keep a telescope oriented directly radially outward, i.e., in the opposite direction from the planet/star. How will the spacelike vector that describes the direction the telescope is pointing be transported along the observer's worldline? The answer is, using the Lie derivative (the more usual name for this in GR is "Fermi-Walker transport").

In your GR class they probably were only considering the former type of problem, not the latter, which is why they gave "parallel transport" as the answer. But it's good to be aware that there are other problems you will eventually encounter where other types of transport are relevant.
I understand what you mean, but I am still confused about when you want to use one over the other. Like why is the geodesic not defined by a Lie derivative? Is just that in that case the observation wouldn't match the theory or is there a deeper reason? In the end the approach to a physics problem should give you the same answer, but in this case it certainly doesn't and I am kinda confused...
 
  • #4
Silviu said:
why is the geodesic not defined by a Lie derivative?

This is like asking "why does a triangle not have four sides"? A geodesic is defined as a curve that parallel transports its tangent vector along itself--not a curve that Lie transports its tangent vector along itself.

Silviu said:
In the end the approach to a physics problem should give you the same answer

I don't know what you mean. Parallel transport and Lie transport are distinct, different things. Why would you expect both of them to give you the same answer?
 
  • #5
This picture that my friend made should help you see the difference between the two derivatives. Don't worry if it takes you a while to understand the differences between the two derivatives, I've struggled, and still struggle sometimes, talking about the difference between the two. It just takes a while to get use to them.

https://imgur.com/a/D638e (not sure how to embed the picture)
 
  • #6
Silviu said:
Hello! In my GR class we were introduced to the parallel transport as the way in which 2 tensors can be compared with each other at different points (and how one reaches the curvature tensor from here). I was wondering why can't one use Lie derivatives, instead of parallel transport. As far as I understand, both define the transport of a tensor along a vector field, so why is one used instead of the other i.e. why is Lie derivative not good to define directional derivatives on a manifold? Thank you!
One reason is that the Lie derivative is not a good directional derivative. Reason being that at a point it doesn't depend only on the direction you differentiate in i.e. ##(\mathcal L_XY)_p## doesn't depend only on ##X_p##, but also on values of the field ##X## near the point ##p##.
 
  • #7
PeterDonis said:
The answer is, using the Lie derivative (the more usual name for this in GR is "Fermi-Walker transport").

I am confused by this. The two are different. Even in this context they don't seem the same to me?
 
  • #8
martinbn said:
The two are different.

You're right, I was thinking of Killing vector fields, which involve the Lie derivative of the metric.
 

1. What is the difference between Lie Derivatives and Parallel Transport?

Lie Derivatives and Parallel Transport are both mathematical concepts used in the field of differential geometry. However, they have different applications and purposes. Lie Derivatives are used to measure how a geometric object changes or evolves along a certain direction, while Parallel Transport is used to transport a geometric object along a curve without changing its shape or orientation.

2. When is it appropriate to use Lie Derivatives?

Lie Derivatives are commonly used in studying the dynamics of a system or in measuring how a geometric object changes over time. They are also used in the theory of relativity to study the curvature of spacetime.

3. Can you provide an example of how Parallel Transport is used in real-world applications?

One of the most common examples of Parallel Transport is in navigation and map-making. When drawing a map, it is important to represent the true shape and orientation of a geographic feature, and parallel transport allows us to do so by moving the map along a curved surface without changing its shape or orientation.

4. How do Lie Derivatives and Parallel Transport relate to each other?

Lie Derivatives and Parallel Transport are closely related, as they both involve the concept of differentiation. In fact, the Lie Derivative of a geometric object can be used to calculate the change in the object's shape after being transported along a curve using Parallel Transport.

5. Are there any limitations or challenges when using Lie Derivatives and Parallel Transport?

One limitation of Lie Derivatives is that they can only be applied to smooth manifolds, which are mathematical spaces that are continuously differentiable. Additionally, Parallel Transport can be challenging to visualize and calculate for complex geometric objects. However, with the use of modern technology and mathematical tools, these limitations can be overcome.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
895
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
63
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
884
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
717
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
959
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top