Vec norm in polar coordinates differs from norm in Cartesian coordinates

In summary, the conversation discusses the confusion surrounding coordinate transformations from cartesian to polar coordinates. It explains how the position vector is defined in polar coordinates and why the second component is zero. It also addresses the use of the euclidean metric in both coordinate systems and clarifies that the coordinates are not the components of a vector. The conversation ends with a thank you for the help provided.
  • #36
Just as an example consider the following picture:
Capture.JPG

It is the affine 2-plane in a curvilinear coordinate system. The position vector field is still defined at each point as long as an origin A is chosen (since it depends on the definition of affine space alone). The components of the position vector field evaluated at point B or C depend on the coordinate/holonomic basis vectors associated to the curvilinear coordinate system at point B or C respectively.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Orodruin said:
An affine space - which was the context of the quoted text - is flat.
Agreed. But the OP asks first about manifolds, and then specializes the question to a flat manifold. So keeping the distinctions doesn’t hurt and could alleviate some confusion for people who may not be familiar with the portions of the conversation that are valid for all manifolds and the portions that only apply for flat manifolds.
 
  • #38
Dale said:
Agreed. But the OP asks first about manifolds, and then specializes the question to a flat manifold. So keeping the distinctions doesn’t hurt and could alleviate some confusion for people who may not be familiar with the portions of the conversation that are valid for all manifolds and the portions that only apply for flat manifolds.
Sure, just saying that the statement was clearly about affine spaces so saying that you disagree with it is a bit confusing as well. I assume you do not disagree with the statement for affine spaces.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #39
Orodruin said:
Sure, just saying that the statement was clearly about affine spaces so saying that you disagree with it is a bit confusing as well. I assume you do not disagree with the statement for affine spaces.
Sorry, I should have been clear what I was disagreeing with. I disagree that there is no need to make the distinction. The statement was valid, but without the distinction it could be confusing. So I think there is a need to make the distinction. And it doesn’t hurt your argument to do so.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #40
PeterDonis said:
Can "flat" even be defined for an affine space?
The affine space uses the obvious connection, making it flat automatically.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #41
Suppose to slightly bend a plane without changing its topology. Do you think the resulting manifold retains the structure of affine space ?
 
  • #42
vanhees71 said:
The affine space uses the obvious connection, making it flat automatically.
And parallel transport is not path dependent with the obvious connection. Which, as you say, makes it flat.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #43
cianfa72 said:
Suppose to slightly bend a plane without changing its topology. Do you think the resulting manifold retains the structure of affine space ?
That is too vague. You can bend a plane and introduce extrinsic curvature but not intrinsic curvature or you can bend it to introduce intrinsic curvature.
 
  • #44
Dale said:
You can bend a plane and introduce extrinsic curvature but not intrinsic curvature or you can bend it to introduce intrinsic curvature.
Latter case without altering the topology of the plane.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
cianfa72 said:
Latter case without altering the topology of the plane.
"Topology" is the wrong word to use here. It's the (2D) metric that doesn't alter, which is a stronger condition.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and ergospherical
  • #46
Dale said:
I disagree that there is no need to make the distinction.
The entire point of my post was that there is no need to make a distinction in an affine space, which was the context of the post. I do not see how you can disagree with this.

In a general manifold there is no translation vector space to identify with the tangent space so the statement clearly does not apply there.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and ergospherical
  • #47
DrGreg said:
"Topology" is the wrong word to use here. It's the (2D) metric that doesn't alter, which is a stronger condition.
The idea is to introduce intrinsic curvature (hence the 2D metric changes) without changing the topology (the bent plane with its curved intrinsic geometry is still globally homeomorphic to the plane with standard topology).

My question is: can we still define an affine structure for it ? In other words, starting from the set of points, can we define a translation vector space such that the axioms of affine space are met ?
 
Last edited:
  • #48
cianfa72 said:
The idea is to introduce intrinsic curvature (hence the 2D metric changes) without changing the topology (the bent plane with its curved intrinsic geometry is still globally homeomorphic to the plane with standard topology).

My question is: can we still define an affine structure for it ? In other words, starting from the set of points, can we define a translation vector space such that the axioms of affine space are met ?
No. Any affine space is flat and a (intrinsically) curved space is not flat by definition.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
842
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
919
Replies
4
Views
634
Back
Top