Parallel transport general relativity

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of parallel transport in general relativity, specifically addressing the invariance of tensor quantities during transport along curved paths. It is established that while parallel transport maintains the tensor's form, the final tensor coordinates can differ from the initial ones when transported along closed paths in curved spacetime. The conversation highlights the distinction between local inertial frames at different points and emphasizes that the choice of curve affects the transported vectors, leading to different outcomes in curved spaces, as illustrated by examples on the surface of a sphere.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tensor calculus and its application in general relativity.
  • Familiarity with the concept of parallel transport and covariant derivatives.
  • Knowledge of local inertial frames and their significance in curved spacetime.
  • Basic comprehension of geodesics and their role in the geometry of spacetime.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical definitions of parallel transport and covariant derivatives in detail.
  • Explore the implications of curvature on parallel transport using examples from differential geometry.
  • Investigate the relationship between geodesics and parallel transport in various geometrical contexts.
  • Examine the differences between local and global reference frames in the context of general relativity.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mathematicians, and students of general relativity who seek a deeper understanding of tensor transport and its implications in curved spacetime. It is particularly relevant for those studying advanced topics in theoretical physics and geometry.

  • #61
Jufa said:
If we state ##e_\theta=(1, 0) ## and ##e_\phi =(0, 1) ##

If ##e_\phi## is supposed to be a unit vector in the ##\phi## direction, then it is not ##(0, 1)##, it is ##(0, 1 / \sin \theta)##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
PeterDonis said:
If ##e_\phi## is supposed to be a unit vector in the ##\phi## direction, then it is not ##(0, 1)##, it is ##(0, 1 / \sin \theta)##.
I don't think it is a needed that the vectors are unitary. Indeed the only effect of choosing a non Unit vector in the basis is a change in the metric.
 
  • #63
Jufa said:
Actually we have ##e_\theta=(1, 0) ## and ##e_\phi =(0, 1) ## and the problem you point out is solved but the inconsestency remains.

You might be confusing yourself by switching equations too many times. Here's how I would work this problem using Equation 4.17 in the reference you gave earlier.

Equation 4.17 reads

$$
\frac{d A^\mu}{d \lambda} + \Gamma^\mu{}_{\nu \alpha} A^\alpha \frac{d x^\nu}{d \lambda} = 0
$$

Here the vector ##A^\mu## is ##e_\phi = (0, 1 / \sin \theta)##. Since our curve is the equator, we have ##\theta = \theta_0 = \pi / 2## all along the curve, and therefore ##d A^\mu / d \lambda = 0##. So we expect to find ##\Gamma^\mu{}_{\nu \alpha} A^\alpha \frac{d x^\nu}{d \lambda} = 0## for all possible index combinations.

Since ##A^1 = 0## (we have ##1## as the ##\theta## component index and ##2## as the ##\phi## component index), only ##\alpha = 2## needs to be considered. So the only connection coefficients that need to be considered are ##\Gamma^1{}_{22} = - \sin \theta \cos \theta## and ##\Gamma^2{}_{12} = \cot \theta##. Both of these vanish for ##\theta = \theta_0 = \pi / 2##. So Equation 4.17 is indeed satisfied for transporting ##e_\phi## along the equator.

Note that for other values of ##\theta## besides ##\pi / 2##, Equation 4.17 will not be satisfied for transporting ##e_\phi## along a curve of constant ##\theta##. That is because such curves are not geodesics for ##\theta \neq \pi / 2##.
 
  • #64
Jufa said:
As Romsofia suggested I tried to picture a simple example to see what's going on and I encounter something that I don't understand. Put this example: The surface of a sphere considereing the basis vectors as ## \vec{e_\theta} = \big(cos(\theta)cos(\phi), cos(\theta)sin(\phi), -sin(\theta)\big)## and ## \vec{e_\phi} = \big(-sin(\theta)sin(\phi), sin(\theta)cos(\phi), cos(\theta)\big)##.
The metric of this space is defined such that ##g_{11} = 1## and ##g_{22}=sin^2(\theta)## being zero the rest of the metric components and with the association ##\theta \rightarrow 1## and ##\phi\rightarrow 2##.

Let as now parallel transport the vector ##\vec{e_\phi}## from one point in the equator to another point on the equator, following the geodesic ##x^1=\theta_0## and ##x^2= \phi ##, being ##\theta_0## constant. The parallel transported vector, which we call ##\vec{v}##, must fulfill at every point the following:

$$\Big(\nabla_j \vec{v}\Big)^k \frac{dx^j}{d\phi} = 0 $$

We know that the solution is ##\vec{v} = \vec{e_\phi}## but if we insert this solution we get the following:

$$\Big(\nabla_j \vec{e_\phi}\Big)^k \frac{dx^j}{d\phi} = \Gamma^k_{j2} \frac{dx^j}{d\phi}= \Gamma^k_{22} $$

Where we have used that ##\frac{dx^j}{d\phi}=\delta^{j}_2##.
If we take k=1 we get:

$$\Big(\nabla_j \vec{v}\Big)^1 \frac{dx^j}{d\phi} = \Gamma^1_{22} = -\frac{1}{tg(\theta_0)}$$
which in general is different from zero.

Where am I wrong?
Oh. So Peter I think the result here is correct. I just needed to remember that ##\theta_0 =\pi/2##. Many thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K