Projection Operator: Showing Orthogonality for Non-Null q

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Azrael84
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Projection
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the Projection Operator as defined in Schutz's text, specifically addressing the projection tensor \( P_{\vec{q}} \) and its application to vectors. The original formulation \( P_{\vec{q}}=g+\frac{\vec{q} \otimes \vec{q}}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q}} \) is scrutinized, revealing that it does not yield orthogonal vectors to \( \vec{q} \) for non-null \( \vec{q} \). The discussion concludes that an alternative definition, \( P_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{q_\alpha q_\beta}{q^\gamma q_{\gamma}} \), correctly produces orthogonal vectors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tensor notation and operations
  • Familiarity with the metric tensor \( g \) and Minkowski space
  • Knowledge of vector projections in the context of general relativity
  • Experience with the properties of null and non-null vectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the metric tensor \( g \) in Minkowski space
  • Learn about the implications of null and non-null vectors in general relativity
  • Explore the derivation and applications of projection operators in tensor calculus
  • Investigate the differences between various definitions of projection tensors in physics literature
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mathematicians, and students studying general relativity, particularly those focusing on tensor analysis and vector projections in spacetime.

Azrael84
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Another question I have from Schutz (CH3, 31 (c)), where he defines the Projection tensor as

P_{\vec{q}}=g+\frac{\vec{q} \otimes \vec{q}}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q}}

This can be written in component form (or rather the associated (1 1) tensor can after operating a few times on it with the metric) as:P^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}=\eta^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}

This obviously takes a vector V and produces another vector , i.e. V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp}=P^{\alpha}{}_{\beta} V^{\beta}=(\eta^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}})V^{\beta}=V^{\alpha}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}V^{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}

The task is then to show that V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp} is indeed orthoganal to \vec{q}, provided q is non-null.

So I start of by taking the dot product of V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp} and \vec{q}:

\vec{q} \cdot \vec{V}_{\perp}=\eta_{\alpha \beta} q^{\alpha}V^{\beta}{}_{\perp}= \eta_{\alpha \beta}q^{\alpha}(V^{\beta}+\frac{q^{\beta}q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}})=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+\frac{\eta_{\alpha \beta}q^{\alpha}q^{\beta}q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+\frac{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q} (q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma})}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q} }=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=2q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}

Which is not generally equal to zero. In Schutz's previous example he used the four velocity as \vec{q} which obviously has magnitude of -1. Also he used the projection operator as

P_{\vec{q}}=g+\vec{U} \otimes \vec{U}

Then everything works out fine, and you can easily show this does produce vectors orthoginal to \vec{U} since following a similar derivation to above you end up with =U_{\beta}V^{\beta}+(\vec{U} \cdot \vec{U}) U_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=U_{\beta}V^{\beta}- U_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=0

So I don't believe this thing above really is the projection operator for arbitrary \vec{q}, although if we instead defined
P_{\vec{q}}=g-\frac{\vec{q} \otimes \vec{q}}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q}}
Then this would work I think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're right: the projection tensor should be P_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{q_\alpha q_\beta}{q^\gamma q_{\gamma}}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K