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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of the Hodge dual, particularly its mathematical formulation and implications in the context of differential forms. Participants explore definitions, properties, and potential misunderstandings related to the Hodge dual in relation to specific examples and sources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a definition of the Hodge dual from a specific text and attempts to apply it to a particular example involving forms, leading to confusion regarding the properties of the wedge product.
  • Another participant points out that the forms in the example must be of the same degree (p-forms), suggesting a potential error in the original example.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the compatibility of the forms used in the example, with one asserting that both should be 1-forms.
  • There is a mention of different conventions in the literature regarding the Hodge dual, indicating that variations exist in how it is presented.
  • A participant seeks a more rigorous understanding of the Hodge dual and expresses dissatisfaction with certain resources, prompting recommendations for alternative texts.
  • Several participants recommend various books that address the Hodge dual and differential forms from both physics and mathematics perspectives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the application of the Hodge dual in the provided example, as there are differing views on the compatibility of the forms involved and the interpretation of the definitions. Multiple competing views remain regarding the conventions used in different sources.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the definitions and properties of the Hodge dual may depend on the specific conventions adopted in different texts, leading to potential confusion in application. There is also an acknowledgment of the need for clarity regarding the degrees of the forms involved in the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners in physics and mathematics who are interested in the Hodge dual, differential forms, and their applications in gauge theory and general relativity.

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