Riemann Tensor: Questions & Geometric Interpretation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Riemann tensor quantifies the variation of a vector when displaced parallel in a closed loop formed by geodesic sides, represented mathematically as ΔVi = + (δa)(δb) RijklVjUkUl. Various authors, including B. Shultz and Dunsby, derive this formula differently, with Baez presenting it as ΔVi = - (ε) 2 RijklVjUkUl + (Oε3). Landau's formulation, ΔVi = - (1/2) RijklVjUkUl, Δfkl, incorporates Stokes' Theorem, providing a definitive result that contrasts with other derivations lacking the factor (1/2). The discussion raises questions about the underlying justifications for these variations and the significance of sign conventions in vector notation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemannian geometry
  • Familiarity with tensor calculus
  • Knowledge of Stokes' Theorem
  • Basic concepts of covariant and contravariant vectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Riemann tensor in detail
  • Explore Stokes' Theorem and its applications in differential geometry
  • Investigate the differences between covariant and contravariant vectors
  • Review literature on geometric interpretations of tensors by authors like B. Shultz and Dunsby
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students of differential geometry seeking to deepen their understanding of the Riemann tensor and its geometric implications.

victorneto
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Tensor of Riemann. Geometric interpretation.The Riemann tensor gives the variation of a vector displaced parallel in a closed loop, say a small rectangle formed by geodesic sides, (δa) and δb) first, starting from a vertex A and going to another vertex in the diagonal, B; then starting from the same vertex A and going to B, using the other route. In B, the vector Vi will change to V'i, such that the variation will be given by:

ΔVi = + (δa) (δb) RijklVjUkUl,

where (δa) (δb) is the area of the infinitesimal rectangle, and Uk and Ul are unit vectors tangent to the trajectories. The question I put to discussion and clarification is as follows. 1) Most authors, B.Shultz, Dunsby, Professor H. Fleming (USP, São Paulo, Brazil), among others, make the deduction of the above formula, using the scheme described above and detailing, used in the use of indexes.

2) Other authors, such as Baez, give the above formula as

ΔVi = - (ε) 2 RijklVjUkUl, + (Oε3)

(Certainly incorporates in (Oε3) the approximations for the 1st order that does, in several phases of the calculations).

But Landau, in Theory of the Field, formula (91.5), p. 342, finds the following expression:

ΔVi = - (1/2) RijklVjUkUl, Δfkl,

where Δfkl is the infinitesimal area bounded by the two paths; that is, represents the product (δa) (δb) UkUl

(In some formulas the sign (-) appears in other o (+), without further explanation.)

The formula ΔVi = - (1/2) RijklVjUkUl, Vj Δfkl,

obtained by Landau incorporates the factor (1/2), was obtained using the powerful Stokes! Theorem, which gives definite and definitive results, while the previously commented formulas were obtained in a geometric tour de force, step by step, and where it does not appear in the final result, said factor (1/2).

I checked all the calculations (that is, I have refined all, to convince myself, and, from the point of view of mathematical procedure, I found nothing to justify the absence of the factor (1/2) obtained through Stokes; it is necessary, as I said above, to make numerous approximations throughout the deductions ...).

But, objectively, I have doubts. I have not found out yet what lies behind these results, or what justifies them, against Landau. And I also understand that the signal that precedes the expressions should not be mere conventions, but the result of the difference between vectors against and covariates. If covariant, (+), if contravariant, (-).

Could you clarify?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
.I request the special finesse of moving the post Tensor of Riemann - Geometric interpretation to the forum Differential Geometriy.

Muito grato.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K