Trouble with metric. Holonomic basis and the normalised basis

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences and relationships between holonomic and normalized bases in the context of differential forms and metrics. Participants explore the implications of these bases on the representation of functions and the associated metrics, focusing on the mathematical expressions and their interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a differential expression and questions where their reasoning went wrong regarding the relationship between the holonomic and normalized bases.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between holonomic and normalized bases, noting that the metric components differ based on the basis used.
  • There is a repeated assertion about the metric components in the normalized basis being equal to 1, while in the holonomic basis, the component for theta is stated to be \( r^2 \).
  • A participant queries when the metric \( g_{\hat{\theta}\hat{\theta}} = r^2 \) can be applied, indicating confusion about transitions between bases.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the normalization of basis vectors by a factor of \( r \), with a mathematical justification presented for this normalization.
  • Another participant reiterates the relationship between differential forms and the corresponding basis vectors, questioning the nature of the dual basis vectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of the metric components depending on the basis used, with no consensus reached on the conditions under which specific metrics apply. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these bases on the representation of functions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the definitions and relationships between different bases and metrics, indicating that assumptions about transitions may not hold universally.

GR191511
Messages
76
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
about metric
##df=\frac {\partial f}{\partial r} dr+\frac {\partial f}{\partial \theta}d\theta\quad
\nabla f=\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}\vec{e_r} +\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta }\vec{e_\theta }##
On the other hand ## g_{rr}=1\:g_{r\theta}=0\:g_{\theta r}=0\;g_{\theta\theta}=r^2\;##So According to##v_2=v^{\alpha} g_{\alpha 2}\;then\; (df)_{\theta}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}*0+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta }*r^2=r\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta }\neq\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta }##Where have I gone wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't get confused between the holonomic basis ##(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})## and the normalised basis ##(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}, \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})##, or similarly the holonomic covector basis ##(dr, d\theta)## and the normalised covector basis ##(dr, r d\theta)##. If you want to use a normalised basis then remember the metric will be ##g_{\hat{r} \hat{r}} = g_{\hat{\theta} \hat{\theta}} = 1##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: GR191511, jedishrfu and berkeman
ergospherical said:
Don't get confused between the holonomic basis ##(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})## and the normalised basis ##(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}, \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})##, or similarly the holonomic covector basis ##(dr, d\theta)## and the normalised covector basis ##(dr, r d\theta)##. If you want to use a normalised basis then remember the metric will be ##g_{\hat{r} \hat{r}} = g_{\hat{\theta} \hat{\theta}} = 1##.
Thank you! I tried and I found ##g_{\hat{\theta}\hat{\theta}}=1## apply to a transition from the normalised basis ##(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}, \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})## to the holonomic covertor basis ##(dr, d\theta)## ...But when can I use ##g_{\hat{\theta}\hat{\theta}}=r^2## ?
 
In the holonomic basis ##g_{\theta \theta} = r^2##. (I used the hat on ##\hat{\theta}## to denote components in the normalised basis, as opposed to no hat for components in the holonomic basis).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: GR191511
ergospherical said:
In the holonomic basis ##g_{\theta \theta} = r^2##. (I used the hat on ##\hat{\theta}## to denote components in the normalised basis, as opposed to no hat for components in the holonomic basis).
Thanks! Does ##g_{\theta\theta}=r^2## apply to any transition?from the holonomic basis to the normalised covector basis? I have already checked,it doesn't.
 
##df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial r} dr + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta} d\theta \equiv (df)_r dr + (df)_{\theta} d\theta##
Equivalently
##df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial r} dr + \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta} (r d\theta) \equiv (df)_{\hat{r}} dr + (df)_{\hat{\theta}} (r d\theta)##
i.e. ##(df)_{\hat{\theta}} = \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta}## in the normalised basis.

Why are the basis vectors normalised by a factor of ##r##? Consider ##g(\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) = \frac{1}{r^2} g(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) = \frac{1}{r^2} g_{\theta \theta} = \frac{1}{r^2} r^2 = 1##, so this is the correct normalisation.
Meanwhile the corresponding basis covector is ##rd\theta## because ##r d\theta (\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) = d\theta(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) = 1##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: GR191511
ergospherical said:
##df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial r} dr + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta} d\theta \equiv (df)_r dr + (df)_{\theta} d\theta##
Equivalently
##df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial r} dr + \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta} (r d\theta) \equiv (df)_{\hat{r}} dr + (df)_{\hat{\theta}} (r d\theta)##
i.e. ##(df)_{\hat{\theta}} = \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta}## in the normalised basis.

Why are the basis vectors normalised by a factor of ##r##? Consider ##g(\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) = \frac{1}{r^2} g(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) = \frac{1}{r^2} g_{\theta \theta} = \frac{1}{r^2} r^2 = 1##, so this is the correct normalisation.
Meanwhile the corresponding basis covector is ##rd\theta## because ##r d\theta (\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) = d\theta(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) =
Thank you!
##df=\frac {\partial f} {\partial r}dr+\frac{1}{r}\frac {\partial f} {\partial \theta}rd\theta## and
##(dr,rd\theta ) \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
dr \\
rd\theta \\
\end{pmatrix}\Rightarrow g_{rr}=g_{\theta\theta}=g^{rr}=g^{\theta\theta}=1\Rightarrow##
##(\nabla f)^\theta=\frac{1}{r}\frac {\partial f} {\partial \theta}*g^{\theta\theta}=\frac{1}{r}\frac {\partial f} {\partial \theta}\;and\;(\nabla f)^r=\frac {\partial f} {\partial r}##
##\Rightarrow \nabla f=\frac {\partial f} {\partial r}\vec e_r+\frac{1}{r}\frac {\partial f} {\partial \theta}(\vec e_\theta\;or\;\frac{\vec e_\theta}{r})?if\;it\;is\;\frac{\vec e_\theta}{r}\;then##
##\nabla f=\frac {\partial f} {\partial r}\vec e_r+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac {\partial f} {\partial \theta}\vec e_\theta## it is wrong.But if it is##\;\vec e_\theta##...the##\;\vec e_\theta## is not a dual basis vector of##\;rd\theta##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K