Pondering basis vectors and one forms

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between basis vectors and one forms, particularly in the context of duality and the use of metrics. Participants explore the implications of defining basis vectors and one forms, the role of the metric tensor, and the tetrad method in describing manifolds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if basis vectors and one forms are required to satisfy the property \(\tilde{\omega}^j(\vec{e}_i)=\delta_i^j\), then they cannot be dual in the sense of raising and lowering indices with the metric tensor.
  • Another participant argues that the duality between vectors and one forms does not necessitate a metric, indicating that the duals change with basis transformations.
  • A follow-up question is posed about whether the natural set of one form basis vectors is defined by the first property rather than the second.
  • One participant inquires about the implications of using the tetrad method, suggesting that it implies a diagonal metric due to the choice of orthonormal basis vectors.
  • Another participant references external sources, including Wikipedia and notes by Andrew Hamilton, to clarify the relationship between the metric and the vierbein field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between duality, metrics, and basis transformations. There is no consensus on the implications of these relationships, particularly regarding the tetrad method and its effects on the metric.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential confusion surrounding the definitions and implications of duality, particularly in the absence of a metric. The discussion also highlights the complexity of abstract index notation in the context of the tetrad method.

Matterwave
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
329
So, I've been thinking about this for a while...and I can't seem to resolve it in my head. In this thread I will use a tilde when referring to one forms and a vector sign when referring to vectors and boldface for tensors. It seems to me that if we require the basis vectors and one forms to obey the property that:

[tex]\tilde{\omega}^j(\vec{e}_i)=\delta_i^j[/tex]

Then, we cannot require the basis vectors and one forms to be "dual" to each other in the sense that we raise and lower their indices with the metric tensor. I.e.:

[tex]\tilde{\omega}^i=\bf{g}(\vec{e}_i,\quad)[/tex]

Since, unless my metric is the Cartesian metric, I cannot get the first property from the second quantity.

Is this true, or have I messed up somewhere?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The "duality" between vector and one forms that you cite does not require a metric. When the vector basis is changed, the dual forms are also changed.

The "duality" between vectors and one forms that can be defined with a metric is different, as the duals do not change if you change basis.

So you are right. The former has nothing to do with raising and lowering indices with a metric (it's defined even without a metric), the latter involves raising and lowering indices with a metric.
 
Last edited:
The natural set of one form basis vectors then, is defined by the first property and not the second one then right?
 
Yes.
 
I have another question. If we choose to use the tetrad method to describe our manifold, then the metric is automatically diag(1,1,1,...)? Since we are choosing ortho-normal basis vectors, then it would make sense that that would have to be the case.

I could never figure out Wald's take on the tetrad method...His abstract index notation there makes me really confused what his equations mean...>.>
 
Just reading wikipedia, the metric is the Minkowski metric times the "square" of the vierbein field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_fields_in_general_relativity

I remember Andrew Hamilton had a good set of notes about this (including using non-orthonormal tetrads). http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/phys5770_08/grtetrad.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K