The Geometric Heat Equation-WTF?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter the.bone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometric Heat
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transition from the classical heat equation to the geometric heat equation, particularly in the context of Riemannian manifolds. Participants explore the mathematical intricacies involved in this transition, including the role of curvature and the Laplace-Beltrami operator.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how to derive the geometric heat equation from the standard heat equation, expressing a desire for a general approach applicable to closed Riemannian submanifolds.
  • Another participant suggests that the expression involving curvature and the normal vector, kN, relates to the Laplace-Beltrami equation, but this is contested by others.
  • A different participant argues that the Laplace-Beltrami equation is a generalization of the Laplacian for k-forms on manifolds, indicating a need for specific methods to connect the two equations.
  • One participant presents a mathematical formulation of the Laplacian on a Riemannian manifold and discusses the calculation of Gaussian curvature, attempting to relate these concepts to the geometric heat equation.
  • The same participant expresses confusion about the meaning of the normal vector n in a general context and questions whether a Darboux frame is necessary for embedding the manifold.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between the Laplace-Beltrami equation and the geometric heat equation, with no consensus on the specific methods to derive one from the other. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the general formulation of the geometric heat equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the normal vector n and the conditions under which the geometric heat equation applies, highlighting the complexity of the mathematical framework involved.

the.bone
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
The Geometric Heat Equation--WTF??

I need some help getting from point A to B. Let's say we have the plain ol' heat equation
[tex]u_t=\Delta u[/tex]
where the [tex]u=u\left(x,t\right)[/tex], and that's all good. Then, we also have the so-called geometric heat equation
[tex]\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial t}=kN[/tex]
where [tex]F:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}'[/tex] is a smooth map between btween Riemannian manifolds, [tex]k[/tex] the curvature, and [tex]N[/tex] the unit normal vector. Intuitivly, I can see how these are the same, but I cannot seem to work out how to go from [tex]\Delta[/tex] to [tex]kN[/tex].
Of course, I can explain my woes further if anyone has any ideas, so let me know what you all think. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your kN is called The Laplace-Beltrami equation u can see this on google
 
Well, I don't think so...

As I understand it, the Laplace-Beltrami equation is merely a generalization of the Laplacian as it applies to taking the laplacian of a k-form on a manifold.

What I am after is how to perfom the specific acrobatics to get from the "regular" heat equation to the geometric one, but in a general sort of way. That is, the geometric one is typically applied to evolving closed curves in the plane, where it becomes obvious how to get from one to the other by simply parameterizing the curve by it's arc length. But let's assume that we have the more general situation of a closed (Riemannain) submanifold evolving on/within another (Riemannian) manifold. Then what would the so-called geometric heat equation look like?
 
***UPDATE***

OK, so here's where I'm at. We can, with some trickery, view the action of the laplacian on a function on a Riemannian manifold as

[tex]\Delta f = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{\det g}}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\left(g^{ij}\sqrt{\det g}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^i}f\right)[/tex]

and we also can calculate the Gaussian curvature via

[tex]K=-\dfrac{R\left(X,Y,X,Y\right)}{G\left(X,Y,X,Y\right)}[/tex]

[tex]=-\dfrac{\left<X\otimes Y\otimes X\otimes Y,R\right>}{g_{ij}X^iX^jg_{kl}Y^kY^l-\left(g_{ij}X^iY^j\right)^2}[/tex]

which, for the "common" case of a two dimensional manifold embedded in [tex]\mathbb{R}^3[/tex] reduces to[tex]K=-\dfrac{R_{1212}}{\det g}[/tex]

which would allow one to compare this to [tex]\Delta f =Kn[/tex], in theory. However, I am still at a loss as to what I am getting here. Specifically, the question of what [tex]n[/tex] is even supposed to be in a general setting is a bit of a mystery to me... I have come across the relation

[tex]h_{ij}=-\left<\dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial x^i\partial x^j},n\right>[/tex]

a few times in various literature, where [tex]h_{ij}[/tex] is the second fundamental form, but as well as the fact that I cannot figure out what this pairing is, I (still) cannot see how to state [tex]n[/tex] in general. Would I need to specify a Darboux frame, and embed my manifold in [tex]\mathbb{R}^{n+1}[/tex] so that I may view the orginal manifold as a hypersurface or something? I'm rather lost at the moment, so any help would be greatly appreciated...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
329
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K