Metric on torus induced by identification of points on plane

In summary, the conversation discusses the different ways of defining a torus and its associated metric. One method involves defining the torus parametrically and working out the induced metric, while another involves identifying opposite sides of a plane and using Cartesian coordinates to deduce the metric on the torus. The experts in the conversation also mention the possibility of using a group of isometries to put a metric on the torus. It is noted that the two methods may lead to different induced metrics, and that finding geodesics on the torus can be non-trivial. Additionally, the experts mention the possibility of using two angles to parameterize the torus, and point out that the factor in the metric for this parameterization is related to the
  • #1
Illuminatum
8
0
Hi all,

Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question but I am wondering about the relationship between different definitions of, for the sake of argument, the torus.

We can define it parametrically (or as a single constraint) and from there work out the induced metric as with any surface.

But we can also define it by considering the plane and identifying opposite sides. Is it possible to use this definition, equip the plane with Cartesian coordinates and then deduce the metric on the torus caused by the identification?

I hope I've explained myself and apologise if it's an ill-thought-out question.

Thanks,
I
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Illuminatum said:
Hi all,

Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question but I am wondering about the relationship between different definitions of, for the sake of argument, the torus.

We can define it parametrically (or as a single constraint) and from there work out the induced metric as with any surface.

But we can also define it by considering the plane and identifying opposite sides. Is it possible to use this definition, equip the plane with Cartesian coordinates and then deduce the metric on the torus caused by the identification?
I
Yes, this is one way to put a metric on the torus. More generally, if you have a riemannian manifold and a group G acting by isometries such that the orbit space M/G is a smooth manifold, then the metric on M descends naturally to a metric on M/G. Your construction is an example of this with M=R² and G=Z².
 
  • #3
You can realize this metric by mapping the plane into R^4 by the equation

1/[itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex](cosx,sinx,cosy,siny)

The image is a flat torus.

To add to Quasar's comment, one can put a flat metric on the Klein bottle because it is the quotient of a group of isometries of the plane. Just add to the standard lattice, the isometry

(x,y) -> (x+1/2,-y)
 
  • #4
Hi - thank you so much for the replies :-D

So in the two cases above (assuming that the plane was initially a piece of ℝ2) are you saying that the two methods lead to different induced metrics? In the case of the pullback onto a surface we end up with
ds2 = (1 + a.cos(v))2du2 + a2dv2
in terms of parameters u and v (from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html :-s).

Do I understand that you mean that if we do things by identification we have the torus with a flat metric
ds2 = du2 + dv2?

Sorry if I've misunderstood - topology isn't my strong point! If I have could you explain what the induced metric would be in the latter case and how it is worked out?

Thanks again,
I
 
  • #5
Illuminatum said:
Hi - thank you so much for the replies :-D

So in the two cases above (assuming that the plane was initially a piece of ℝ2) are you saying that the two methods lead to different induced metrics? In the case of the pullback onto a surface we end up with
ds2 = (1 + a.cos(v))2du2 + a2dv2
in terms of parameters u and v (from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html :-s).

Do I understand that you mean that if we do things by identification we have the torus with a flat metric
ds2 = du2 + dv2?

Sorry if I've misunderstood - topology isn't my strong point! If I have could you explain what the induced metric would be in the latter case and how it is worked out?

Thanks again,
I

Sorry. It is my fault for being vague. If one identifies the edges of a square in the plane to make a torus then this torus inherits the metric ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 from the plane.

The embedding of the torus in R^4 parametrizes the torus with this metric. One can not realize the torus with this metric in R^3 since in R^3 no closed surface without boundary can have a completely flat metric.

However a torus can have many metrics and each one comes from a different metric on the square. The only requirement is that the metric on the square lines up on its edges. This lining up is what Quasar was talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Ok great, thank you very much :-)

Two minor questions...
Presumably finding geodesics is non trivial if you use the plane plus identifications...or do you extend the fundamental domain and place image points for your end point and find the geodesics for those, then wrapping them back to the fundamental domain?

And so if I wanted the metric I wrote above (u and v) I guess I must first parameterise the plane with u and v satisfying the identification, place that metric on the plane and then make the torus by revolution?

Actually also I was thinking that since we often think of it also as S1xS1 I would have thought it natural to use two angles, say [itex]\theta, \phi[/itex] and use
[itex]ds^{2}= a^2d\theta^{2} + b(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2}[/itex]
but I just realized whilst typing that of course b is precisely the factor 1 + a.cos(\theta) in my first post telling us how far away from the centre of the second circle we are given how far around the first one (I've fixed some radial parameter to 1 here, sorry)!

Ok, think I'm good - thanks very much indeed.
James
 
  • #7
Illuminatum said:
Ok great, thank you very much :-)

Two minor questions...
Presumably finding geodesics is non trivial if you use the plane plus identifications...or do you extend the fundamental domain and place image points for your end point and find the geodesics for those, then wrapping them back to the fundamental domain?

In general finding geodesics involves solving a differential equation. If the torus inherits its metric from the plane then its geodesics are the projections - "wrap arounds" - of geodesics in the plane. For the flat metric they are the projections of straight lines.A good parametized torus in 3 space is the sterographic projection of the flat torus in 4 space parameterized above. This torus looks like a curled up slinky. Since stereographic projection is conformal - it preserves infinitesimal angles - this torus is conformally flat. Try to figure out the geodesics on it.
 

1. What is a torus?

A torus is a geometric shape that resembles a donut or a tire. It is a three-dimensional surface with a hole in the middle.

2. How is a torus formed?

A torus can be formed by rotating a circle around an axis that is not in the same plane as the circle, creating a ring-like shape.

3. What is a metric on a torus?

A metric on a torus is a way of measuring distances between points on the surface of the torus. It takes into account the curvature of the surface and allows for calculations of lengths, angles, and other geometric properties.

4. How is a metric on a torus induced by identification of points on a plane?

This is a mathematical process where points on a plane are identified and mapped onto a torus, creating a one-to-one correspondence between the two surfaces. This allows for the transfer of the metric from the plane to the torus, resulting in a metric on the torus.

5. What are the applications of the metric on torus induced by identification of points on a plane?

This type of metric is commonly used in various fields such as physics, mathematics, and engineering. It can help in understanding the behavior of waves, calculating the curvature of surfaces, and solving problems related to heat flow and diffusion on curved surfaces.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
948
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
526
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top