Principal and Gaussian curvature of the FRW metric

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the calculation of the principal and Gaussian curvature of the spatial part of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric, specifically for the case of negative Gaussian curvature (k = -1). Participants explore the mathematical formulation and implications of curvature in the context of a 3D hyperboloid embedded in 4D Minkowski space.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the FRW metric and derives the spatial part for k = -1, leading to a hyperboloid metric in angular coordinates.
  • Another participant questions the second fundamental form, suggesting that it should yield constant principal curvatures due to the maximal symmetry of the 3D hyperboloid.
  • Concerns are raised about the calculation of the principal curvatures, particularly k3, with one participant noting that k3 = -1 only holds at ψ = 0.
  • Discussions arise regarding the sign of the normal vector and its impact on the principal curvatures, with conflicting interpretations of the metric signature affecting calculations.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the correctness of the normal vector and the associated calculations for the second fundamental form.
  • One participant provides a detailed calculation of Lψψ, asserting that it leads to a consistent result when reinserted with parameterizations.
  • Another participant clarifies that the sign in the metric affects the calculations, emphasizing the importance of consistent signature conventions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the calculations for the principal curvatures or the second fundamental form. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the implications of the metric signature and the calculations involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their calculations, including assumptions about the metric signature and the interpretation of the normal vector. The discussion highlights unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on specific definitions.

shinobi20
Messages
277
Reaction score
20
TL;DR
I'd like to confirm my calculations of the principal and Gaussian curvature of the spatial part of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. Specifically, if the spatial part has negative curvature.
I would like to calculate the principal and Gaussian curvature of the spatial part of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric; specifically, the negative Gaussian curvature ##k=-1##. The FRW metric is,

\begin{equation*}
ds^2 = -dt^2 + R(t)^2 \left( \frac{dr^2}{1-k r^2} + r^2 d\Omega^2 \right)
\end{equation*}

For a certain time slice ##t = t_0##, the spatial part is,

\begin{align*}
& d\sigma^2 = R_0^2 \left( \frac{dr^2}{1-k r^2} + r^2 d\Omega^2 \right) \qquad R_0 \equiv R(t_0) \\
& d\sigma^2 = R_0^2 \left( \frac{dr^2}{1 + r^2} + r^2 d\Omega^2 \right), \qquad \text{k=-1}
\end{align*}

If we set ##r = \sinh \psi##, then we get the metric (also called the first fundamental form) for the 3d hyperboloid in angular coordinates,

\begin{align*}
& d\sigma^2 = R_0^2 \left( d\psi^2 + \sinh^2 \psi d\theta^2 + \sinh^2 \psi \sin^2\theta d\phi^2 \right)\\
& d\sigma^2 = h_{ab} dx^a dx^b
\end{align*}

\begin{equation*}
h_{ab} =
\begin{bmatrix}
R_0^2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & R_0^2 \sinh^2 \psi & 0\\
0 & 0 & R_0^2 \sinh^2 \psi \sin^2 \theta
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}

The 3d hyperboloid can be embedded in 4d Minkowski space. Let ##g_{\mu\nu} = \text{diag}(-1,1,1,1)## be the Minkowski metric and ##h_{ab}## be the 3d hyperboloid metric in angular coordinates. The 3d hyperboloid in ##(x,y,z,w)## coordinates is described by the equation,

\begin{align*}
& x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -w^2 = -R_0^2\\
& f(x,y,z,w) = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -w^2 + R_0^2
\end{align*}

The parameterization is,

\begin{equation*}
x = R_0 \sinh \psi \sin\theta \cos \phi, \quad y = R_0 \sinh \psi \sin\theta \sin \phi, \quad z = R_0 \sinh \psi \cos\theta, \quad w = R_0 \cosh \psi
\end{equation*}

Given the point ##\mathbf{v}^a = (x,y,z,w)## on the 3d hyperboloid, the tangent vectors ##\mathbf{e}_a## are,

\begin{align*}
& \mathbf{e}_\psi = R_0 \left( \cosh \psi \sin\theta \cos \phi, \cosh \psi \sin\theta \sin \phi, \cosh \psi \cos\theta, \sinh \psi \right)\\
& \mathbf{e}_\theta = R_0 \left( \sinh \psi \cos\theta \cos \phi, \sinh \psi \cos\theta \sin \phi, -\sinh \psi \sin\theta, 0 \right)\\
& \mathbf{e}_\phi = R_0 \left( -\sinh \psi \sin\theta \sin \phi, \sinh \psi \sin\theta \cos \phi, 0 , 0 \right)
\end{align*}

The normal vector ##N_\mu## on the 3d hyperboloid can be calculated as,

\begin{equation*}
N_\mu = -\nabla f(x,y,z,w)
\end{equation*}

The normalized normal vector ##n_\mu## is,

\begin{align*}
& n_\mu = \frac{N_\mu}{\sqrt{ | g^{\mu\nu} N_\mu N_\nu | }}\\
& n_\mu = \left( -\sinh \psi \sin\theta \cos \phi, -\sinh \psi \sin\theta \sin \phi, -\sinh \psi \cos\theta, \cosh \psi \right)
\end{align*}

We also need the derivative of the tangent vectors ##\partial_b \mathbf{e}_a##. The second fundamental form ##L_{ab}## can be calculated as,

\begin{equation*}
L_{ab} = g^{\mu\nu} (\partial_b \mathbf{e}_a)_\mu n_\nu, \quad
L_{ab} =
\begin{bmatrix}
-R_0 \cosh 2\psi & 0 & 0\\
0 & R_0 \sinh^2 \psi & 0\\
0 & 0 & R_0 \sinh^2 \psi \sin^2 \theta
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}

The principal curvatures ##k_i## for ##i=1,2,3## are the eigenvalues of the matrix ##h^{-1} L##,

\begin{equation*}
k_1 = \frac{1}{R_0}, \quad k_2 = \frac{1}{R_0}, \quad k_3 = -\frac{\cosh 2\psi}{R_0}
\end{equation*}

The Gaussian curvature is ##k = k_1 k_2 k_3##.

Questions:
(1) Are my calculations correct?
(2) Are the answers for the principal curvatures correct?
(3) I'm wondering about ##k_3##. As I know the Gaussian curvature should be ##k=-1## for ##R_0 = 1##, but ##k_3 = -1## only for ##\psi = 0##. Can anyone help clarify and explain more about the principal curvatures of the 3d hyperboloid?
(4) Another thing I'm unsure of is the sign of the normal vector, if I remove the minus sign then ##k_1,k_2## becomes negative and ##k_3## becomes positive while maintaining the same magnitude.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second fundamental form looks a bit suspect (i.e. the cosh in the to left component). The 3d hyperboloid (H3) is maximally symmetric and should have constant intrinsic curvature everywhere. You should then find that ##L \propto h##, specifically ##L = (1/R_0) h##. And you should get constant principal curvatures.
 
ergospherical said:
The second fundamental form looks a bit suspect (i.e. the cosh in the to left component). The 3d hyperboloid (H3) is maximally symmetric and should have constant intrinsic curvature everywhere. You should then find that ##L \propto h##, specifically ##L = (1/R_0) h##. And you should get constant principal curvatures.
Indeed, if I remove ##\cosh 2\psi## then I get ##k_3 = -\frac{1}{R_0}##. However, I'm not yet sure where I went wrong. The necessary quantities to calculate ##L## are listed above, although I did not explicitly type out the vectors ##\partial_b \mathbf{e}_a##, but that is just the derivative of the tangent vectors; I've used Mathematica to calculate those quantities. Is my normal vector correct?

The issue is with the ##(1,1)## component ##L_{11}##. The vector ##\partial_1 \mathbf{e}_1## is given by,

\begin{equation*}
\partial_1 \mathbf{e}_1 = \partial_\psi \mathbf{e}_\psi = (R_0 \sinh \psi \sin \theta \cos \phi, R_0 \sinh \psi \sin \theta \sin \phi, R_0 \sinh \psi \cos \theta, R_0 \cosh \psi )
\end{equation*}

Note the minus sign in the metric ##g## is for the coordinate ##w##. ##L_{11}## is calculated as,

\begin{align*}
g^{\mu\nu} (\partial_1 \mathbf{e}_1)_\mu n_\nu & = -(\partial_1 \mathbf{e}_1)_1 n_1 + (\partial_1 \mathbf{e}_1)_2 n_2 + (\partial_1 \mathbf{e}_1)_3 n_3 + (\partial_1 \mathbf{e}_1)_4 n_4\\
& = -R_0 \cosh^2 \psi - R_0 \sinh^2 \psi \cos^2 \theta - R_0 \sinh^2 \psi \sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \phi - R_0 \sinh^2 \psi \sin^2 \theta \sin^2 \phi\\
& = -R_0 ( \cosh^2 \psi + \sinh^2 \psi )\\
& = -R_0 \cosh 2 \psi
\end{align*}

So, the issue is the term ##\cosh^2 \psi + \sinh^2 \psi##.
 
Last edited:
\begin{align*}
L_{\psi \psi} = n_{\mu} \frac{\partial^2 x^{\mu}}{\partial \psi^2} &= - \frac{x}{R_0} R_0 \sinh{\psi} \sin{\theta} \cos{\phi} \\
&\quad - \frac{y}{R_0} R_0 \sinh{\psi} \sin{\theta} \sin{\phi} \\
&\quad - \frac{z}{R_0} R_0 \sinh{\psi} \cos{\theta} \\
&\quad + \frac{w}{R_0} R_0 \cosh{\psi}
\end{align*}
Reinserting the parameterizations of ##x^{\mu}(\psi, \theta, \phi)## gives ##L_{\psi \psi} = R_0##, which is indeed ##h_{\psi \psi} / R_0##.
 
ergospherical said:
\begin{align*}
L_{\psi \psi} = n_{\mu} \frac{\partial^2 x^{\mu}}{\partial \psi^2} &= - \frac{x}{R_0} R_0 \sinh{\psi} \sin{\theta} \cos{\phi} \\
&\quad - \frac{y}{R_0} R_0 \sinh{\psi} \sin{\theta} \sin{\phi} \\
&\quad - \frac{z}{R_0} R_0 \sinh{\psi} \cos{\theta} \\
&\quad + \frac{w}{R_0} R_0 \cosh{\psi}
\end{align*}
Reinserting the parameterizations of ##x^{\mu}(\psi, \theta, \phi)## gives ##L_{\psi \psi} = R_0##, which is indeed ##h_{\psi \psi} / R_0##.
Your last term should be ##-\frac{w}{R_0} R_0 \cosh \psi## due to the metric ##g=diag(-1,1,1,1)## right? The minus sign in ##g## is what makes it minus. That's the reason the issue comes out.
 
I already account for the signs. Albeit maybe I had chosen the other signature to you. With your signature convention, ##f(x) := x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - w^2 + R_0^2 = 0## gives ##N_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} f = (2x,2y, 2z, -2w)## and ##||N_{\mu}|| = 2R_0## gives ##n_{\mu} = \tfrac{1}{R_0}(x,y,z,-w)##. Then take ##L_{ab} = n_{\mu} \tfrac{\partial^2 x^{\mu}}{\partial y^a \partial y^b}##, and that Einstein sum has a positive sign for the first three terms and a negative sign for the last term.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: shinobi20
ergospherical said:
I already account for the signs. Albeit maybe I had chosen the other signature to you. With your signature convention, ##f(x) := x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - w^2 + R_0^2 = 0## gives ##N_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} f = (2x,2y, 2z, -2w)## and ##||N_{\mu}|| = 2R_0## gives ##n_{\mu} = \tfrac{1}{R_0}(x,y,z,-w)##. Then take ##L_{ab} = n_{\mu} \tfrac{\partial^2 x^{\mu}}{\partial y^a \partial y^b}##, and that Einstein sum has a positive sign for the first three terms and a negative sign for the last term.
Actually, I made a mistake interpreting the vectors ##\partial_b \mathbf{e}_a## as lower index, i.e., ##(\partial_b \mathbf{e}_a)_\mu##. Actually, they are upper index vectors ##(\partial_b \mathbf{e}_a)^\mu##. So when computing ##L_{\psi \psi}##, it is as you did, i.e., ##L_{\psi \psi} = n_\mu (\partial_b \mathbf{e}_a)^\mu ##.

My normal vector is,

\begin{align*}
& n_\mu = \frac{N_\mu}{\sqrt{ | g^{\mu\nu} N_\mu N_\nu | }}\\
& n_\mu = \left( -\sinh \psi \sin\theta \cos \phi, -\sinh \psi \sin\theta \sin \phi, -\sinh \psi \cos\theta, \cosh \psi \right)
\end{align*}

and

\begin{equation*}
\partial_\psi \mathbf{e}_\psi = (R_0 \sinh \psi \sin \theta \cos \phi, R_0 \sinh \psi \sin \theta \sin \phi, R_0 \sinh \psi \cos \theta, R_0 \cosh \psi )
\end{equation*}

When you take the inner product it indeed gives ##R_0##. However, if this is the case then all ##k_1, k_2, k_3## have the same sign. If my normal vector has a minus sign, then ##k_1 = 1/R_0, k_2 = 1/R_0, k_3 = 1/R_0##. If I remove the minus sign, then ##k_1 = -1/R_0, k_2 = -1/R_0, k_3 = -1/R_0##. Shouldn't one of the principal curvatures have a different sign?

I believe the 3d hyperboloid is hyperbolic in some direction and spherical in another direction. As an example, for 2d hyperboloid the principal curvatures should be ##k_1 = 1/R_0, k_2 = -1/R_0##.

The only way for this to happen is if ##L_{\psi \psi} = -R_0## not ##R_0##.
 
The spatial isotropy forces sectional curvature to be equal in any direction at a point (and the homogeneity means they are also the same for any point).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: shinobi20
ergospherical said:
The spatial isotropy forces sectional curvature to be equal in direction at a point (and the homogeneity means they are also the same for any point).
Oh yeah! So the correct principal curvatures are ##k_1 = -1/R_0, k_2 = -1/R_0, k_3 = -1/R_0##?

If this is the case then the Gaussian curvature will be ##k=k_1 k_2 k_3 = -1/R_0^3## which has the correct sign. If ##R_0 = 1## then ##k=-1## which is the assumption from the start.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K