- #1

- 340

- 6

*FIRST IMAGE*

*SECOND IMAGE*

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- A
- Thread starter mertcan
- Start date

- #1

- 340

- 6

- #2

- 340

- 6

hi, I looked up torsion tensor derivation on 2 different books, and encountered 2 different situations, so my mind has been confused. For the first image, I could totally understand how torsion tensor was derived, but for the second image although there are similar things, I can not make a connection between 2 images. For instance, in first image torsion tensor is between r1 and r2 points, but this torsion tensor does not correspond to torsion tensor in second image, because instead there is a [u,v] vector. Besides, as you can see "sr1" is the parallel transported vector according to first image and resembles the vector "uR" ( appearance of these 2 vectors is same I think), but View attachment 101110 is parallel transported vector according to second image ( it is really parallel to View attachment 101111 vector, but for the first image the parallel transported vector ("sr1" ) is not really parallel to " pq " vector. To sum up, Could you please help me understand these 2 different situation, and express or explain the truth???

FIRST IMAGE

View attachment 101107

SECOND IMAGE

View attachment 101108

Why anyone can help me?? Is it a though question or long question ??

- #3

- 340

- 6

hi, I looked up torsion tensor derivation on 2 different books, and encountered 2 different situations, so my mind has been confused. For the first image, I could totally understand how torsion tensor was derived, but for the second image although there are similar things, I can not make a connection between 2 images. For instance, in first image torsion tensor is between r1 and r2 points, but this torsion tensor does not correspond to torsion tensor in second image, because instead there is a [u,v] vector. Besides, as you can see "sr1" is the parallel transported vector according to first image and resembles the vector "uR" ( appearance of these 2 vectors is same I think), but View attachment 101110 is parallel transported vector according to second image ( it is really parallel to View attachment 101111 vector, but for the first image the parallel transported vector ("sr1" ) is not really parallel to " pq " vector. To sum up, Could you please help me understand these 2 different situation, and express or explain the truth???

FIRST IMAGE

View attachment 101107

SECOND IMAGE

View attachment 101108

hi, I looked up torsion tensor derivation on 2 different books, and encountered 2 different situations, so my mind has been confused. For the first image, I could totally understand how torsion tensor was derived, but for the second image although there are similar things, I can not make a connection between 2 images. For instance, in first image torsion tensor is between r1 and r2 points, but this torsion tensor does not correspond to torsion tensor in second image, because instead there is a [u,v] vector. Besides, as you can see "sr1" is the parallel transported vector according to first image and resembles the vector "uR" ( appearance of these 2 vectors is same I think), but View attachment 101110 is parallel transported vector according to second image ( it is really parallel to View attachment 101111 vector, but for the first image the parallel transported vector ("sr1" ) is not really parallel to " pq " vector. To sum up, Could you please help me understand these 2 different situation, and express or explain the truth???

FIRST IMAGE

View attachment 101107

SECOND IMAGE

View attachment 101108

Why can anyone help me?? Is it a though question or long ??

- #4

- 259

- 45

- #5

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 8,603

- 8,162

The second image is comparing and contrasting two similar definitions: "You draw a parallelogram and the failure to close is the torsion" and "You draw a parallelogram and the failure to close is the commutator". The inner parallelogram is the same as your first diagram. The outer parallelogram is something different but confusingly similar.

The inner parallelogram's top and right sides are formed by parallel transporting the bottom and left sides along the left and bottom sides respectively - the failure to close is the torsion. The outer parallelogram's top and right sides are the values of the vector field at R and Q respectively - the failure to close is the commutator.

The difference between the two top sides (i.e. the difference between the parallel transported vector and the "local" value) is the covariant derivative in the direction of the left side. Similarly for the two right sides.

- #6

- 340

- 6

- #7

- 340

- 6

Guys, I have been waiting for a long time, and I have not received an answer. I really want to make you sure that I can not make any progress in this topic. I got stuck, and I want to proceed to other tremendous, astonishing topics in relativity. I will appreciate, and be so pleased if you return me...........Markus Hanke they do not depict the same thing, look at the parallel transported vectors. The parallel transported vector "sr1" in first image should correspond to View attachment 101127 vector notvector in the second image. By the way Ibix, how are these 2 different derivations correct ?? I mean torsion definition must be unique, but there are 2 different meanings for torsion in these images. How can we have 2 different torsion definition ?????? If we say that torsion definition is the the failure of the closure of the parallelogram made up of the small displacement vectors and their parallel transports, we can not use that definition for second image, because in second image we should not haveor View attachment 101128 vectors as a parallel transported vectors

- #8

- 17,675

- 7,634

Markus Hanke they do not depict the same thing, look at the parallel transported vectors. The parallel transported vector "sr1" in first image should correspond to View attachment 101127 vector notvector in the second image.

No, this is incorrect, sr1 corresponds to ##u_R^\parallel##. The vectors ##u_R##/##v_Q## are not parallel transported along the parallelogram sides.

- #9

- 340

- 6

Thank you for your return "Orodruin" ,but ifNo, this is incorrect, sr1 corresponds to ##u_R^\parallel##. The vectors ##u_R##/##v_Q## are not parallel transported along the parallelogram sides.

- #10

- 17,675

- 7,634

Please provide the references for your quoted images. I recognise both of these figures, but cannot directly remember from where they are taken.Thank you for your return "Orodruin" ,but if View attachment 101138 or View attachment 101139 are not parallel transported vectors, for what do they stand??? also What is the meaning of View attachment 101138 and View attachment 101139 vector ???

- #11

haushofer

Science Advisor

- 2,583

- 981

The first one seems to come from Nakahara.

- #12

haushofer

Science Advisor

- 2,583

- 981

The vector fields at the specific points.Thank you for your return "Orodruin" ,but if View attachment 101138 or View attachment 101139 are not parallel transported vectors, for what do they stand??? also What is the meaning of View attachment 101138 and View attachment 101139 vector ???

Transporting a vector field from some point to a point Q is different from simply evaluating it in point Q. Is that your confusion?

- #13

- 340

- 6

Thank you for your informing "Orodruin". As " haushofer" guessed, first image belongs to "Nakahara", whereas second image belongs to "F.W. Hehl and Yu.N. Obukhov". I consider the problem is: There may be a parallel transportation problem of vectors. For example, parallel transported vector "sr1" in first image do not parallel to "pq" vector, but if we pass to the second image we can examine that parallel transported vectorThe vector fields at the specific points.

Transporting a vector field from some point to a point Q is different from simply evaluating it in point Q. Is that your confusion?

- #14

- 17,675

- 7,634

This has already been addressed in post #12.Thank you for your informing "Orodruin". As " haushofer" guessed, first image belongs to "Nakahara", whereas second image belongs to "F.W. Hehl and Yu.N. Obukhov". I consider the problem is: There may be a parallel transportation problem of vectors. For example, parallel transported vector "sr1" in first image do not parallel to "pq" vector, but if we pass to the second image we can examine that parallel transported vectoris totally parallel to View attachment 101142 vector, and this situation makes a confusion. Nevertheless, "Orodruin" expressed that sr1 corresponds to. The vectors, andare not parallel transported along the parallelogram sides. After this explanation I have one more question: iforare not parallel transported vectors, for what do they stand??? also What is the meaning ofandvector ???

- #15

haushofer

Science Advisor

- 2,583

- 981

- #16

- 340

- 6

First image is quoted from F.W. Hehl and Yu.N. Obukhov

second image quoted from David R. Wilkins

- #17

- 17,675

- 7,634

No, it should not. These are two completely different vectors which a priori has nothing to do with each other.+should be a directional derivative

Also, please use the LaTeX features of the forum rather than editing in images, it will make your posts significantly more readable.

- #18

- 340

- 6

Well thanks for your return, but why do we put this [u,v] vector (at the second image ) on the image?? How we can derive this vector?? The only derivation I know of this vector is the difference of directional derivatives, but I can not see any directional derivatives ( after " Orodruin" 's explanation ) at the first image. What kind of logic exist for that vector??No, it should not. These are two completely different vectors which a priori has nothing to do with each other.

Also, please use the LaTeX features of the forum rather than editing in images, it will make your posts significantly more readable.

- #19

- 17,675

- 7,634

- #20

- 340

- 6

Do you mean that [u,v] is not the difference of directional derivatives?? If not, how do we calculate the value of it??

- #21

- 17,675

- 7,634

If you use "directional derivative" to mean "as seen embedded into a Cartesian space" then no. The Lie bracket ##[u,v]## is the commutator between the vector fields ##u## and ##v##, which you can easily show is a vector field in itself. You can easily show that it is related to the failure of flows to commute.Do you mean that [u,v] is not the difference of directional derivatives?? If not, how do we calculate the value of it??

- #22

- 340

- 6

Well, Could you give some specific examples or remind me how to calculate the [u,v] commutator. For instance, If I want to find a torsion tensor, I need covariant derivatives, and [u,v] commutator, but I know the formula of how to calculate the covariant derivative whereas I can not remember the formulation of commutator. What kind of proof may make a relation between the failure of flows and commutator?? I am asking because I want to visualize the concept using some proofs.If you use "directional derivative" to mean "as seen embedded into a Cartesian space" then no. The Lie bracket ##[u,v]## is the commutator between the vector fields ##u## and ##v##, which you can easily show is a vector field in itself. You can easily show that it is related to the failure of flows to commute.

- #23

- 8,932

- 2,919

Well, Could you give some specific examples or remind me how to calculate the [u,v] commutator. For instance, If I want to find a torsion tensor, I need covariant derivatives, and [u,v] commutator, but I know the formula of how to calculate the covariant derivative whereas I can not remember the formulation of commutator. What kind of proof may make a relation between the failure of flows and commutator?? I am asking because I want to visualize the concept using some proofs.

I hope I don't screw this up, but here's my understanding:

If you have a scalar function [itex]\phi[/itex], and a tangent vector [itex]u[/itex], then the meaning of [itex]u(\phi)[/itex] is the rate of change of [itex]\phi[/itex] along the tangent [itex]u[/itex]. In terms of coordinates, it's [itex]u(\phi) = \sum_j u^j \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^j}[/itex].

The meaning of [itex][u,v][/itex] is that tangent vector [itex]w[/itex] such that [itex]w(\phi) = u(v(\phi)) - v(u(\phi))[/itex]

In terms of coordinates, [itex][u,v] = w \Rightarrow w^j = \sum_i (u^i \frac{\partial v^j}{\partial x^i} - v^i \frac{\partial u^j}{\partial x^i})[/itex]

- #24

- 8,932

- 2,919

In terms of coordinates, [itex][u,v] = w \Rightarrow w^j = \sum_i (u^i \frac{\partial v^j}{\partial x^i} - v^i \frac{\partial u^j}{\partial x^i})[/itex]

Just for clarification of what I wrote, the commutator [itex][u,v][/itex] only makes sense if [itex]u[/itex] and [itex]v[/itex] are vector

- #25

- 340

- 6

Ok, I got your answer, but could you show me at the image whereJust for clarification of what I wrote, the commutator [itex][u,v][/itex] only makes sense if [itex]u[/itex] and [itex]v[/itex] are vectorfields, not vectors. A vector field assigns a vector to each point in your space. In terms of components, [itex]u^i[/itex] is a function of position.

Share: