One-parameter family of metrics

  • Thread starter Thread starter mach4
  • Start date Start date
mach4
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I have a manifold M=S^4 which is endowed with a physical metric g.
I can define another metric on this manifold h (a pullback metric).

Does it make sense to define a one-parameter family of metrics G(u) on the manifold M in the form

G(u) = (1-u)*g + u*h , where u is a parameter in [0,1] ?

Are there any compatibility conditions?
Any help would be appreciated - Thx!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you're talking about euclidean metrics, then that should work, since the sum of two symmetric positive definite matrices is symmetric and positive definite, and so qualifies as a metric. It won't work for minkoswkian metrics though, since, eg, diag(1,1,1,-1) and diag(1,1,-1,1) are both valid metrics, but their sum is not.
 
Thanks for your help!
Both metrics are symmetric positive definite but non-Euclidean.

When I check G for
-symmetry
-bilinearity
-non-degeneracy
all criteria of a metric seemed to be satisfied.
I was just bothered by the fact that g and h are associated with different curvature tensors, but it seems that they simply add to define the new curvature tensor of G.

Did I understand correctly? In the case of the Minkowskian-metrics the 'non-degeneracy' is not satisfied and thus it does not define a metric.
 
The curvature is not linear in the metric, so will not simply add. But it's true, you can get a continuous family of metrics with different curvatures (obviously the curvature will then vary continuously over this family). And yes, the problem is that the sum of Minkowski metrics is not necessarily non-degenerate.

By the way, by "Euclidean" I mean a positive definite metric, not a flat one. It's just to distinguish from "Minkowskian".
 
uups - you are right. The Riemannian is clearly not linear in the metric. Bad mistake :(.
Thus, the operation of adding two positive definite metric is possible and does not lead to any inconsistencies. Great!
Thanks again for your help!
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top