What is the Hodge dual and how does it work?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlbertEi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dual Wedge
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Hodge dual is a mathematical concept used in differential geometry, particularly in the context of gauge theory and general relativity. According to John Baez and Javier P. Muniain in "Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity," the relationship between two p-forms is defined by the equation ω ∧ *μ = ⟨ω, μ⟩ vol. The discussion reveals confusion regarding the compatibility of forms, particularly when both ω and μ are treated as 1-forms. Recommendations for further reading include Nakahara for gauge theory and Frankel for a physics-oriented perspective, while Spivak and Kobayashi are suggested for pure mathematics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential forms
  • Familiarity with the wedge product
  • Knowledge of gauge theory concepts
  • Basic principles of general relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Hodge dual in detail using "Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity" by John Baez and Javier P. Muniain
  • Explore Nakahara's text for a physics-oriented viewpoint on gauge theory
  • Read "Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists" by Marian Fecko for insights on the Hodge dual
  • Investigate the mathematical rigor of differential forms in "Calculus on Manifolds" by Spivak
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on gauge theory and general relativity, as well as mathematicians interested in differential geometry and the Hodge dual.

AlbertEi
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm trying to get my head around the Hodge dual and how it exactly works. In the book "Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity" by John Baez and Javier P. Muniain they define:

\begin{equation}
\omega \wedge * \mu = \langle \omega , \mu \rangle \mathrm{vol}
\end{equation}

for two p-forms. This implies that:

\begin{equation}
\omega \wedge * \mu = * \mu \wedge \omega
\end{equation}

Therefore, if we consider a vector space with basis dx, dy, dz, and

\begin{equation}
\omega = \omega_x \mathrm{d}x
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
*\mu = \mu_y \mathrm{d} y
\end{equation}

Then the definition by Baez and Muniain yields:

\begin{equation}
\omega_x \mu_y \mathrm{d}x \wedge \mathrm{d} y = \mu_y \omega_x \mathrm{d} y \wedge \mathrm{d}x
\end{equation}

However, if I would try to calculate the above equation using 'anti-commuting' property of the wedge product, then I get:

\begin{equation}
\omega \wedge * \mu = \omega_x \mu_y \mathrm{d}x \wedge \mathrm{d} y = - \omega_x \mu_y \mathrm{d}y \wedge \mathrm{d} x \neq * \mu \wedge \omega
\end{equation}

So clearly, I am going wrong somewhere, but I can't see where I'm going wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\omega and \mu have to be p-forms. In your example one is 1-form, the other is a 2-form.
 
Thanks for your reply, I will think about it over the next couple of days. I've the feeling that in my example they are both 1-forms so they should satisfy that equation.
 
AlbertEi said:
\begin{equation}
\omega \wedge * \mu = \langle \omega , \mu \rangle \mathrm{vol}
\end{equation}

for two p-forms. This implies that:

\begin{equation}
\omega \wedge * \mu = * \mu \wedge \omega
\end{equation}

If you interchange ##\omega## and ##\mu##, shouldn't the second line be ##\omega \wedge * \mu = \mu \wedge * \omega## ?

Winitzki gives something like that in the first equation at the top of the right column on p4 of https://sites.google.com/site/winitzki/linalg.
 
Last edited:
AlbertEi said:
Thanks for your reply, I will think about it over the next couple of days. I've the feeling that in my example they are both 1-forms so they should satisfy that equation.

You have made ##\ast \eta## a ##1##-form. Thus ##\eta## is then a ##n-1##-form.
However, you also made ##\omega## a ##1##-form. This is incompatible.
Both ##\omega## and ##\eta## should be ##1##-forms.
 
Ok, thank micromass, that makes sense.
 
atty, yeah but in other sources I have also seen

\begin{equation}
(*\omega) \wedge \mu = \langle \omega , \mu \rangle \mathrm{vol}
\end{equation}

so I think they are equivalent (although it seems that everybody is using different conventions so I might be wrong). However, what micromass said made sense, so I think that is where I went wrong.
 
AlbertEi said:
I'm trying to get my head around the Hodge dual and how it exactly works.
Are you looking for a definite, mathematically rigorous way of thinking of it, or are you looking for intuition? Intuition is often good for wrapping your head around something, but I get the feeling that you aren't looking for that.
 
Yeah, it would be nice to have a more rigorous way of thinking about it. If you have any good sources where I can learn this stuff then that would be great (I thought Sean Carroll's book was quite disappointing regarding differential forms, so now I have the aforementioned book from which I try to learn it). Thanks

Edit: FYI I study physics and am mainly interested in their application in gauge theory and general relativity.
 
  • #10
I would recommend Nakahara for a physics oriented viewpoint (it is primarily gauge theory) as well as Frankel. I personally don't know of any GR text that treats differential forms in a completely modern (i.e. index free) way. Wald's GR text has a nice appendix on differential forms but it is index based hence rather classical in nature.

If you want something on the pure math side, Spivak and Kobayashi are the reigning kings.

Links: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471157333/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0914098705/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0750306068/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107602602/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Thanks WannabeNewton for your recommendations!
 
  • #12
Another very good book is by Marian Fecko "Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists". In particular the Hodge dual is discussed there.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K