The unit vector normal to the curvature of spacetime

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of finding a unit vector normal to a curved region of spacetime, particularly in the context of general relativity and differential geometry. Participants explore the mathematical frameworks and assumptions necessary to define such a vector, including the relationship between surfaces and their embeddings in higher-dimensional spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the coordinates of a unit vector normal to a curved region of spacetime, referencing Hamilton's principle and general relativity.
  • Another participant argues that there is no normal to spacetime curvature itself, suggesting that the inquiry may pertain to the normal of a "curved" hypersurface instead.
  • A subsequent reply confirms that the original inquiry relates to spacetime as a brane in a higher-dimensional bulk, where a normal vector exists.
  • Several participants discuss the need for two sets of coordinates and the use of metric tensors and covariant derivatives to derive the normal vector, referencing the Weingarten formulas.
  • There is a challenge regarding the uniqueness of the normal vector unless the product space is specifically R^5.
  • One participant notes that the discussion assumes an n-dimensional surface embedded in an n+1-dimensional space, introducing the concept of principal and second normals in a generalized context.
  • A further contribution suggests starting with densities rather than contravariant vectors, proposing a formulation involving a 4-form.
  • Another participant highlights the challenge of constructing an embedding from intrinsic geometry alone, noting that such an embedding may not exist or may not be unique.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the normal vector to spacetime curvature, with some suggesting it pertains to hypersurfaces and others discussing embeddings in higher dimensions. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the mathematical formulation and assumptions involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the embedding of surfaces and the uniqueness of normal vectors, as well as the dependence on specific mathematical frameworks and definitions. The relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic geometries is also a point of contention.

dimension10
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
Let us say there is a curved region of spacetime whose curvature is [tex]\kappa(s)[/tex]. How does one find the coordinates of the unit vector normal to a certain point on the region of spacetime? I tried searching Hamilton's principle and the general theory of relativity but I could not find any equation which describes the coordinates of the normal vector to the curved region of spacetime.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In classical general relativity, there no normal to spacetime curavture. Since spacetime is all there is, how could something be normal to it.

Perhaps you mean the normal to a "curved" hypersurface. For example, if a 3-dimensional hypersurface is picked out by the level set [itex]\Phi \left( x^\mu \right) = 0[/itex], then [itex]\partial \Phi / \partial x^\mu[/itex] is normal to the hypersurface.

Perhaps you're thinking of spacetime as a brane in a higher-dimensional bulk, in which case there is a normal to spacetime sticking out into the bulk.
 
George Jones said:
Perhaps you're thinking of spacetime as a brane in a higher-dimensional bulk, in which case there is a normal to spacetime sticking out into the bulk.

Yes. That is what I am asking.
 
There's a considerable body of work relating to the differential geometry of a surface embedded in a manifold. I can only summarize.

You need to use two sets of coordinates: uα in the surface and xi in the manifold. You need the relationship between the two: xiα ≡ ∂xi/∂uα. You need metric tensors aαβ in the surface and gij in the manifold. You need a covariant derivative that includes both sets of Christoffel symbols: one for the x's and one for the u's.

Then you show that xiα;β = bαβ ni, where ni is the unit normal vector and bαβ is a symmetric surface tensor, the "second fundamental form". One can then derive the Weingarten formulas, ni = - aβγbβαxiγ and solve for n.
 
Bill_K said:
There's a considerable body of work relating to the differential geometry of a surface embedded in a manifold. I can only summarize.

You need to use two sets of coordinates: uα in the surface and xi in the manifold. You need the relationship between the two: xiα ≡ ∂xi/∂uα. You need metric tensors aαβ in the surface and gij in the manifold. You need a covariant derivative that includes both sets of Christoffel symbols: one for the x's and one for the u's.

Then you show that xiα;β = bαβ ni, where ni is the unit normal vector and bαβ is a symmetric surface tensor, the "second fundamental form". One can then derive the Weingarten formulas, ni = - aβγbβαxiγ and solve for n.

Thanks.
 
Bill_K said:
There's a considerable body of work relating to the differential geometry of a surface embedded in a manifold. I can only summarize.

You need to use two sets of coordinates: uα in the surface and xi in the manifold. You need the relationship between the two: xiα ≡ ∂xi/∂uα. You need metric tensors aαβ in the surface and gij in the manifold. You need a covariant derivative that includes both sets of Christoffel symbols: one for the x's and one for the u's.

Then you show that xiα;β = bαβ ni, where ni is the unit normal vector and bαβ is a symmetric surface tensor, the "second fundamental form". One can then derive the Weingarten formulas, ni = - aβγbβαxiγ and solve for n.

How can there be a unique vector, unless the (locally isometric) product space is R^5?
 
Phrak, You're right, this assumes we're dealing with an n-dimensional surface embedded in an n+1-dimensional space. In the general case one has a set of equations generalizing the Serret-Frenet formulas for a curve, namely there will be a principal normal, second normal, etc.
 
Bill_K said:
Phrak, You're right, this assumes we're dealing with an n-dimensional surface embedded in an n+1-dimensional space. In the general case one has a set of equations generalizing the Serret-Frenet formulas for a curve, namely there will be a principal normal, second normal, etc.

Ok, assuming we have a embedded 4 surface in 5 dimenions-

I don't follow your math, but I would not start with contravariant vectors but densities.

[tex]A_a = {\epsilon_a}^{bcde} \sqrt{-g} B_{bcde}[/tex]

It seems that the dual of A is a normal vector to the surface at any point where B=B(w,x,y,z,t) is any 4-form. I couldn't say if this is equivalent to your formulation.

Edit: I should have specificed that B is a 4-form at a point lying in the 4-surface.
 
Last edited:
The problem is we don't have the embedding. We start given only the intrinsic geometry of the surface and try to construct an embedding. It may not exist, and if it does exist it may not be unique. For instance a flat 4-space immersed in 5-space could be rolled up like a piece of paper.

In the internal coordinate system we have only εabcd to deal with, and a 4-form is equivalent to a scalar. Constructing the normal vector requires 5-dimensional coordinates, and we aren't given the relationship between them, xiα ≡ ∂xi/∂uα.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K