Understanding Wedge Products in General Relativity

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyp4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product Wedge
kyp4
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I am studying general relativity from Sean Carroll's text and I have a simple question about the wedge product. According to the text, the wedge product of two one-forms (dual vectors) is

(A \wedge B)_{\mu\nu} = 2A_{[\mu}B_{\nu]} = A_\mu B_\nu - A_\nu B_\mu

I understand the why the first two expressions are equal given the definition of the wedge product. I also understand that the square brackets in the third second expression denotes antisymmetry and that the two indices can be exchanged at the cost of a minus sign. However, the third expression seems to imply that the antisymmetry of the two indices (perhaps because they belong to two different quantities) really means the expansion given in the third expression. Can anyone clear up what I'm sure is a simple misunderstanding of notation?

Followup question: what is the meaning of, for example in Minkowski spacetime with spherical spatial coordinates, d\theta \wedge d\phi? I know that each of these is a (basis) one-form but I'm not sure how exactly to apply the wedge product to them.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
ABν] is defined as (1/2)(AμBν - AνBμ)

For n indices, A[abc...d] = (1/n!)(Aabc...d + ... ).

This is just a matter of convention. If we define antisymmterization without the 1/n! factor, then we also change the definition of the wedge product to make it all work out the same.
 
Yes, I see that now. Thanks dx! Anyone have any insight as to the meaning of d\theta \wedge d\phi? I guess my confusion is what are the "components" of these basis dual vectors to which to apply the definition of the wedge product?
 
Last edited:
In what basis? The components of dφ in the (dθ, dφ) basis are (0, 1).
 
d\theta \wedge d\phi is a two-form, which means it is a map T_xM \times T_xM \rightarrow {\mathbb R}, whose action on a pair of vectors u, v is like follows:

(d\theta \wedge d\phi)(u, v) = \det \left| \begin{array}{cc} d\theta(u) & d\phi(u) \\ d\theta(v) & d\phi(v) \end{array} \right| = d\theta(u) \; d\phi(v) - d\theta(v) \; d\phi(u)

That is the meaning of a wedge product.
 
Yes, I think I see now. The components, in matrix form, of the resulting two-form would then be

<br /> (d\theta \wedge d\phi)_{\mu\nu} = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; -1 &amp; 0<br /> \end{array}\right]<br />

in the dx^\mu \otimes dx^\nu basis in Minkowski spacetime with spherical spatial coordinates.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top