I Riemann Curvature: Understanding Parallel Transport on 1D Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Narasoma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curvature Riemann
Click For Summary
Riemann curvature is assessed through parallel transport of a test vector, revealing changes in direction. In the context of a one-dimensional ring, the concept of intrinsic curvature is clarified, as it cannot exhibit intrinsic curvature due to its dimensionality. While the ring may seem intuitively curved when embedded in higher dimensions, this extrinsic curvature is not relevant in general relativity, which focuses on intrinsic properties. Thus, a one-dimensional manifold, like a ring, does not possess intrinsic curvature. The discussion emphasizes the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature in the context of general relativity.
Narasoma
Messages
42
Reaction score
10
Everyone who is currently studying GR must be familiar with this picture. We find Riemann curvature by paraller transport a "test vector" around and see whether the vector changes its direction.

My question. How does it work with one dimensional Ring? A geomteric ring is intuitively curved but the only parallel transport possible for a vector to the point where it previously started, just give the sampe direction.
images.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are mixing up intrinsic and extrinsic curvature. A 1d space has no intrinsic curvature (as you appear to have deduced), but you can embed it in a higher dimensional space where its tangent vector field (also embedded in that space) need not always point in the same direction. This latter is what you are calling "intuitively" curved.

GR cares about intrinsic curvature. Spacetime isn't embedded in a higher dimensional space that we are aware of, so extrinsic curvature isn't a useful concept.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Dale and Orodruin
Narasoma said:
How does it work with one dimensional Ring?
It doesn't. A one-dimensional manifold cannot have any intrinsic curvature.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K