What would be the physical consequence of a non-metric connection?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pellman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Connection Physical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physical implications of a non-metric connection, particularly focusing on the condition \nabla_X g=0 and its significance in general relativity (GR). Participants explore the consequences of not preserving lengths during parallel transport and the potential physical observations that could arise from such a scenario.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if the derivative does not satisfy \nabla_X g=0, parallel-transported vectors would not preserve their length, prompting questions about the physical manifestation of this phenomenon.
  • Another participant draws a parallel to the significance of rank three tensors, indicating that the meaning of such mathematical constructs depends on the physical theory in question.
  • A participant questions the assumption of \nabla_X g=0 in GR, suggesting that preserving length is crucial, referencing the Morley-Michelson experiment as a supporting argument.
  • Concerns are raised about how one would notice changes in lengths if they varied from point to point, with a later reply suggesting that path dependence could be a key factor in observing such changes.
  • Participants discuss the implications of path-dependent length changes, proposing that one could measure an object with a rod, then carry the rod along a closed path where lengths change, leading to discrepancies in measurements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the physical consequences of a non-metric connection, with some agreeing on the importance of length preservation while others question how such changes would be observable. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the implications of non-metric connections.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of connections and the unresolved nature of how changes in lengths might be detected in practice.

pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
Suppose in whatever physical theory we are using, our derivative does not satisfy [tex]\nabla_X g=0[/tex] for tangent fields X. Of course, this means that parallel-transported vectors do not preserve their length. But what would this look like physically?

Perhaps there are various consequences which depend on the details of the connection coefficients, but I just want to get a general idea so that the signficance of why we want [tex]\nabla_X g=0[/tex] will sink in. Right now the most it means to me is that it simplifies the calculations :-)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is like asking, "What would be the physical significance of a rank three tensor?" The answer of course is, whatever meaning your theory has assigned to it. After Einstein's success in explaining gravity in terms of geometry, people tried to extend the idea to somehow incorporate electromagnetism as an aspect of geometry. Unsymmetrical metric tensors, for example, and of course the Kaluza-Klein theories. None of them led anywhere.
 
Thanks, Bill.

Maybe I should have asked the inverse question. Why do we assume that [tex]\nabla_X g=0[/tex] in GR?
 
pellman said:
Thanks, Bill.

Maybe I should have asked the inverse question. Why do we assume that [tex]\nabla_X g=0[/tex] in GR?

I presume that you gave your self the answer in the initial intervention: to preserve the length. Why do we preserve the length? For a part because of the Morley-Michelson experiment and the analysis we have made of it.
 
I don't get it though. If lengths changed as we passed from one point to another, the lengths of our measuring rods would change as well, so how would you notice?

Edit: unless the change in length was path dependent. ??
 
pellman said:
I don't get it though. If lengths changed as we passed from one point to another, the lengths of our measuring rods would change as well, so how would you notice?

In observing the proportions.

L -> L' = 2. L
S = L2 -> S' = (2.L). (2.L) = 4. S for a square
V = L3 -> V' = (2.L).(2.L).(2.L) = 8. V for a cube

So if your rod a initial length r, it becomes 2.r and effectively L/r = L'/r'.

But now consider V/r (or V/L) and compare it with V'/r' (or resp. V'/L') and state that V'/r' = 8.V/2.r = 4. V/r which is obviously not V/r. Your eyes will tell you the difference immediately!
 
pellman said:
I don't get it though. If lengths changed as we passed from one point to another, the lengths of our measuring rods would change as well, so how would you notice?

Edit: unless the change in length was path dependent. ??
Essentially, yes, the problem is path dependence- that, as you might remember from Calculus III, implies there are closed paths over which length changes.

Use your measuring rod to measure and object, then carry your measuring rod around a closed path that changed lengths, to remeasure the same object (which has not moved).
 
Thanks, all. Much appreciated
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K