High School Solving for integral curves- how to account for changing charts?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of integral curves in the context of vector fields and changing coordinate charts. It clarifies that when solving for an integral curve associated with a vector field, one must consider the vector field's restriction to the curve rather than the field itself. The participants agree that the image of the curve typically does not lie within a single coordinate chart, necessitating adjustments in coordinates as different charts may cover different points along the curve. The conversation emphasizes that the coordinates of the vector field at various points depend on the respective charts used, leading to local solutions that can be "stitched together" to form a coherent integral curve. This highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between vector fields, curves, and coordinate systems in differential geometry.
Shirish
Messages
242
Reaction score
32
[Ref. 'Core Principles of Special and General Relativity by Luscombe]

Let ##\gamma:\mathbb{R}\supset I\to M## be a curve that we'll parameterize using ##t##, i.e. ##\gamma(t)\in M##. It's stated that:
If ##\gamma(t)## has coordinates ##x^i(t)## and [a vector field] ##X## has components ##X^i##, finding the integral curve associated with ##X## reduces to solving a set of coupled first-order differential equations, $$\frac{d}{dt}x^i=X^i(x^1(t),\ldots,x^n(t))$$
Immediately after there's an example: if ##X=x\partial_x+y\partial_y##, then ##dx/dt=x## and ##dy/dt=y##, which gives the integral curve passing through ##(a,b)## at ##t=0## as ##\gamma(t)=(ae^t,be^t)##.

  1. Now from the context, provided we're talking about only one curve ##\gamma##, shouldn't ##X## actually be the restriction of the vector field to the curve ##\gamma##, rather than the vector field itself?
  2. Referring to the phrase "If ##\gamma(t)## has coordinates ##x^i(t)##...", I'm guessing it's unlikely that all the points on the curve belong to a single chart. So how can we claim only one coordinate system ##x^i## to represent the coordinates of all the points on the curve? Won't we have to adjust the coordinates according to the chart?

    e.g. if some ##p,p'\in\gamma(I)## are covered by different charts, and if the coordinates of ##p## are ##x^i##, won't the coordinates of ##p'## have to be characterized by an entirely different coordinate system (e.g. some ##y^i##)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. No. You're starting with the vector field ##X## and solving for ##\gamma.## You don't have a curve to begin with.

2. Given ##X##, you're looking for a curve ##\gamma## with ##X(\gamma(t))=\gamma'(t)## for all ##t##. A solution to this equation will satisfy your quoted equation in every coordinate system. You're right that in general the image of the curve won't lie inside of a single coordinate chart.
 
Infrared said:
1. No. You're starting with the vector field ##X## and solving for ##\gamma.## You don't have a curve to begin with.

2. Given ##X##, you're looking for a curve ##\gamma## with ##X(\gamma(t))=\gamma'(t)## for all ##t##. A solution to this equation will satisfy your quoted equation in every coordinate system. You're right that in general the image of the curve won't lie inside of a single coordinate chart.
What do you mean by ##X(\gamma(t))##? Is it that the coordinates are given by ##X((x^i\circ\gamma)(t))##? That's the only way I can think of that'll make it chart independent.
 
A vector field assigns to each ##x\in M## a tangent vector in ##T_xM##. By ##X(\gamma(t))##, I mean the tangent vector that ##X## assigns to the point ##\gamma(t)##.
 
Infrared said:
A vector field assigns to each ##x\in M## a tangent vector in ##T_xM##. By ##X(\gamma(t))##, I mean the tangent vector that ##X## assigns to the point ##\gamma(t)##.
Yes, that's clear to me so far.

In regards to the example in the OP, consider any point ##p_0\in M##. So can I say that whatever coordinate system ##\{x, y\}## is used at ##p_0## (in accordance with whatever chart covers it), the coordinates of ##X_{p_0}## in the corresponding coordinate basis (corresponding to the coordinate system) will be ##x,y##?

Essentially this means that if I use some other coordinate system ##\{u,v\}## at some other point ##p_1##, then the coordinates of ##X_{p_1}## will now be ##u,v##.

And what this implies for the integral curve that we calculate, i.e. ##(ae^t,be^t)##, is that if ##\gamma(t_0)=p_0## and ##\gamma(t_1)=p_1##, then ##(ae^{t_0},be^{t_0})## are the coordinates of the integral curve at ##p_0## in the coordinate basis ##(x,y)##, while ##(ae^{t_1},be^{t_1})## are the coordinates of the integral curve at ##p_1## in the coordinate basis ##(u,v)##. In essence, we're coming up with local solutions to the curve and "stitching them together".

Does that sound correct so far?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K