Understanding Normal One-Forms for Plane x=0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mmmm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Normal One-forms
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of normal one-forms in the context of the plane defined by x=0. A normal one-form operates on normal vectors to yield zero, which initially led to confusion regarding the components of the normal one-form. The clarification reveals that the normal one-form must operate on tangent vectors to the surface, not normal vectors, aligning with the definition of being perpendicular to the plane. The realization highlights that while (0,0,β) represents a subset of normal one-forms, it does not encompass all possible forms. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grasping the concept of normal one-forms in relativity.
Mmmm
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
I'm reading through Schutz's first course in relativity book and am finding question 12 on page 83 a bit problematic.

If I understand it correctly an normal one-form to a plane is a one-form that, when operating on a normal vector to the plane, will give the result 0. This seems fairly straight forward to me.
The question is talking about the plane x=0.
So all vectors normal to this must be of the form (a,0,0) (ie parallel to the x axis)
In that case, the normal one form must have components (0,b,c) then
\tilde{n}(\vec{V})= 0*a+b*0+c*0=0

Part (c) of the question says
Show that any normal to S is a multiple of \tilde{n}
and the answer provided is:
On the Cartesian basis, the components of \tilde{n} are (0,0,\beta) for some \beta. Thus any \tilde{n} is a multiple of any other.
But my understanding is that (0,0,\beta) is just a subset of all possible normal one forms to this plane, and I'd agree that of this subset any \tilde{n} is a multiple of any other. But this isn't true for all \tilde{n}, as surley (0,\alpha, \beta) is also valid.

Obviously I'm missing something fairly fundamental here, and I just have to understand this before I move on... Please help :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh... I am being stupid.. Just realized that the one-form has to operate on a vector tangent to the surface, not the vector normal... I really should read more carefully...:blushing:
now the one-form is actually perpendicular to the plane and so calling it a normal one-form to the plane makes much more sense!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K