Transformation of the metric tensor from polar to cartesian coords

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 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.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top