Transformation of the metric tensor from polar to cartesian coords

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of the metric tensor from Cartesian to polar coordinates in a two-dimensional context. Participants explore the mathematical process involved in this transformation and the implications of their calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their process of converting the Cartesian metric tensor [1 0; 0 1] to polar coordinates, resulting in [1 0; 0 r^2].
  • The same participant expresses confusion about converting back to Cartesian coordinates and not obtaining the original metric tensor.
  • Another participant suggests that the initial approach should work but requests more details to provide feedback.
  • A later reply provides a detailed breakdown of the equations used for the transformation, indicating that the participant's calculations may have led to an incorrect conclusion about the gxx component.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the interchangeability of r and (x^2+y^2)^(0.5) after receiving clarification.
  • There is a side discussion about the use of LaTeX for formatting mathematical expressions in posts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of the transformation process, but there is an initial misunderstanding regarding the calculations. The discussion reflects a progression from confusion to clarification without reaching a definitive consensus on the initial error.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on specific mathematical relationships and transformations, which may depend on their interpretations of the metric tensor and the definitions of the variables involved. The discussion does not resolve all uncertainties regarding the calculations.

mokrunka
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm working on a problem that requires me to take the cartesian metric in 2D [1 0;0 1] and convert (using the transformation equations b/w polar and cartesian coords) it to the polar metric. I have done this without issue using the partial derivatives of the transformation equations and have come up with the metric in polar coordinates [1 0;0 r^2].

Just for grins, I decided to use the partial derivatives and convert back to cartesian using the polar metric, expecting to come up with the exact same thing I started with, namely [1 0;0 1]. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Shouldn't this work? Can anyone help me in where my thought process is wrong here?

Note, this is not a HW question; I am a degreed engineer teaching myself relativity from a workbook.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mokrunka said:
Shouldn't this work? Can anyone help me in where my thought process is wrong here?

It should work, yes, but you will need to post more details before we can give any feedback on where you might have gone wrong.
 
For example, in the attached word file, I've given the equation to convert the metric from primed (r, theta) to unprimed (x, y) coordinates. I have also listed the partial derivatives I've used.

In this file, you can see gxx will not (unless my math is failing me) give 1, which would be the gxx component of the cartesian metric in 2D.
 

Attachments

mokrunka said:
In this file, you can see gxx will not (unless my math is failing me) give 1

Yes, it does. You have:

$$
g_{xx} = \left( \frac{\partial r}{\partial x} \right)^2 g_{rr} + \left( \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x} \right)^2 g_{\theta \theta}
$$

We have (rewriting your equations slightly to make the math easier to see) ##\partial r / \partial x = x / r## and ##\partial \theta / \partial x = - y / r^2##, and the metric coefficients are ##g_{rr} = 1## and ##g_{\theta \theta} = r^2## (the latter may be where you went wrong in your math). Plugging everything in gives

$$
g_{xx} = \frac{x^2}{r^2} + \frac{y^2}{r^4} r^2 = \frac{x^2 + y^2}{r^2} = 1
$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ahhh, I failed to see that I could use r and (x^2+y^2)^.5 interchangeably. Thank you very much for this clarification!

As a side note, how are you able to type the equations directly into the post?

Edit: nevermind, I've just discovered Latex.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K