The meaning of an integral of a one-form

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the meaning and interpretation of integrating a one-form, particularly in the context of differential geometry and physics. Participants explore the relationship between one-forms, their integrals, and physical concepts such as force and potential energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses understanding of integrals of differential forms but struggles to grasp the meaning of integrating a one-form without a "d" symbol.
  • Another participant points out that the "d" is present in the structure of differential forms, which prompts a realization in the original poster.
  • There is a discussion about the conditions under which force can be considered a one-form, specifically the requirement for force to be conservative, leading to the application of Poincaré's lemma.
  • A participant questions the motivation for integrating a potential function along a line, contrasting it with the more intuitive integration of force.
  • Responses clarify that the potential is a 0-form and that it is the differential of the potential that is integrated along curves.
  • Participants seek both physical and mathematical reasons for integrating the differential of the potential along a line, with one suggesting that it relates work done to potential energy in conservative forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the meaning and implications of integrating one-forms and potential functions. There is no consensus on the motivation for integrating the potential function, as participants explore both physical and mathematical perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the need for clarity on how "force" is defined in this context and the implications of integrating different forms. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the motivations for integration.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in differential geometry, mathematical physics, and the conceptual foundations of integrals in the context of force and potential energy may find this discussion valuable.

observer1
Messages
81
Reaction score
11
So I understand that the integral of a differential form ω over the boundary of some orientable manifold Ω is equal to the integral of its exterior derivative dω over the whole of Ω.

And I understand that one can pull back the integral of a 1-form over a line to the line integral between the two endpoints.

I also understand (from my poor calculus training) how to do an integral of some function * dx between two endpoints. I KNOW what that means.

But I do NOT know what it means to integrate a one form. I mean, I get the integral, I get the presence of the integrand, I get the idea of "performing" it over a line. But if there is no "d" symbol on the integral, I cannot figure out what it means.

Note: I am teaching myself differential geometry, forms, calculus on manifolds, all at once. The clouds are clearing and rote operations are becoming more clear. I get that forms make doing these operatoins easier. I can see how the integral of force along a line bewtween two endpoints is work. I get that. But I do not understand what it means to integrate the 1-form force over the line. I cannot attach physical meaning to it.

So... What does it mean to integrate a one form? Where does it come from? (I get how I can pull it back, but I cannot figure out where the integral comes from or what it means when there is no "d")
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But there are "d"s in the differential forms. The coordinate basis for a differential p-form has the structure ##dx^{i_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge dx^{i_p}##.
 
Orodruin said:
But there are "d"s in the differential forms. The coordinate basis for a differential p-form has the structure ##dx^{i_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge dx^{i_p}##.

AH HA! Yes... You are right. I see that now... So the "d" is there! I am sorry... I was dense.
So is that then how they quickly decide that force is a one form and it has a potential function such that dV = F
 
observer1 said:
AH HA! Yes... You are right. I see that now... So the "d" is there! I am sorry... I was dense.
So is that then how they quickly decide that force is a one form and it has a potential function such that dV = F
In order for this to be the case, the force must be conservative (which would mean that dF=0). If this is the case, Poincaré's lemma tells you that a potential exists (at least locally).

In order to conclude that force is a one-form, you would first have to provide details on how "force" has been introduced.
 
Orodruin said:
In order for this to be the case, the force must be conservative (which would mean that dF=0). If this is the case, Poincaré's lemma tells you that a potential exists (at least locally).

In order to conclude that force is a one-form, you would first have to provide details on how "force" has been introduced.

Would you mind if I followed up with one more issue?

What motivates me to integrate a potential function alone a line?
Yes, when I do, and use generalized Stokes, and if I realize that the differential of a potential function is a force, and the resulting line integral pulled back to a 1-D mapping, I get the work... sure.

But what motivates me to even want to integate the potential function along the line?

I get the reverse motivation. That is founded in something I "physically" appreciate: the tangent of the force along the line, integrated.
But what motivates me to integrate the potential function along the line?
 
observer1 said:
But what motivates me to integrate the potential function along the line?
Nothing. The potential is a 0-form. It is 1-forms that are integrated along curves.
 
Orodruin said:
Nothing. The potential is a 0-form. It is 1-forms that are integrated along curves.

I am sorry... I mis typed. I should have asked: Why integrate the differential of the potential along the line?

Integral of dV=-F
Why integrate the force along a line?
 
Are you asking for a mathematical or a physical reason?
 
Orodruin said:
Are you asking for a mathematical or a physical reason?

Was going to say physical, but now that I think... both? Please?
 
  • #10
Physics wise, because it gives a meaningful and good description of observations for the type of force that we call conservative and let's us relate work done to a potential energy. Mathematics wise, because the natural type of object to integrate a one-form over is a (directed) curve.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K