Proof of Normal Vector Field for Hypersurface Sigma

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the vector field \(\xi^{\mu} = \nabla^{\mu} f\) is normal to a hypersurface \(\Sigma\) defined by the equation \(f(x) = \text{const.}\). It is established that \(\nabla f\) is orthogonal to all vectors in the tangent space \(T_{p}(\Sigma)\) at any point \(p \in \Sigma\). The proof utilizes the concept of directional derivatives, demonstrating that if a vector \(\vec{v}\) is tangent to the surface, then the directional derivative \(D_{\vec{v}} f = \nabla f \cdot \vec{v} = 0\), confirming that \(\nabla f\) is perpendicular to the tangent plane. This clarification resolves confusion regarding the behavior of the function on the hypersurface versus outside it.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential geometry concepts, specifically hypersurfaces.
  • Familiarity with vector calculus, particularly directional derivatives.
  • Knowledge of the gradient operator \(\nabla\) and its properties.
  • Basic understanding of tangent spaces and orthogonality in vector fields.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of hypersurfaces in differential geometry.
  • Learn about the gradient and its role in defining normal vectors.
  • Explore directional derivatives and their applications in vector calculus.
  • Investigate the relationship between tangent spaces and normal vectors in manifolds.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying differential geometry, particularly those interested in the properties of hypersurfaces and vector fields.

WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
553
Hi guys, I was wondering if anyone could post or point me to a proof of the statement that given a hypersurface \Sigma, specified by setting a function f(x) = const., the vector field \xi ^{\mu } = \triangledown ^{\mu }f = g^{\mu \nu }\triangledown _{\nu }f will be normal to \Sigma in the sense that \xi ^{\mu } will be orthogonal to all u\in T_{p}(\Sigma ) for some p\in \Sigma. I tried to visualize it for trivial manifolds but I really couldn't. If there isn't really a proof of any kind could someone at least make the statement more intuitive. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The simplest way of looking at it is to use the "directional derivative". If f(X) is a real valued function (X is a point in some space) and \vec{v}
is a vector in that space, then the "derivative of f in the diretion \vec{v}", the rate at which f is increasing in that direction, is given by D_\vec{v} f= \nabla f\cdot\vec{v}. In particular, if \vec{v}
is tangent to the surface f(X)= constant then f does not change: D_\vec{v} f= \nabla f\cdot \vec{v}= 0 which says directly that \nabla f and \vec{v}
are perpendicular. Since \vec{v}
could be any vector in the tangent plane, \nabla f is perpendicular to the tangent plane, i.e. normal to the surface.
 
Oh, the fact that I saw it in component form was confusing me. If I could just restate what you said, for my own clarification: since \Sigma is specified by f(x) = const. then on \Sigma, \triangledown _{\nu }f = 0 for all \nu so \xi ^{\mu } = g^{\mu \nu }\triangledown _{\nu }f = 0 identically as well on the hypersurface. Then, for all \mathbf{v}\in T_{p}(\Sigma ), \xi ^{\mu }v_{\mu } = 0 and since \mathbf{v} lies on the tangent space to \Sigma at p, \boldsymbol{\xi} must be orthogonal to it so it is then normal to \Sigma. Is this basically the gist of what you said?
Thank you so very much by the way. Cleared my head up; I think my problem was that I kept thinking of the function everywhere outside the hypersurface and not just what happens on it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K