Defining Vector: Beyond Schutz's Treatment in G. Relativity

  • Thread starter schwarzschild
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Vector
In summary, in Schutz's treatment of general relativity, one-forms are defined as functions that map vectors to real numbers, and vectors are defined as linear functions that map one-forms to real numbers. This may seem circular, but it is actually a valid way of defining vectors and one-forms. In the context of general relativity, the vector space V is isomorphic to its dual space V**, which allows us to think of them as "the same thing". In general relativity, the tangent space of spacetime at a point p is defined as the set of linear functions from the set of smooth functions on spacetime to the real numbers. This definition is equivalent to the more familiar definition of tangent spaces using coordinate systems
  • #1
schwarzschild
15
1
In Schutz's treatment of general relativity he defines a one-form as a function which maps a vector to a real number, and then later defines a vector as a linear function that maps one-forms into the reals. So the definitions seem to be circular - is there another way we can define a vector?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If V is a finite-dimensional vector space over R (the real numbers), it's dual space V* is defined as the set of linear functions from V into R. Since V* is also a finite-dimensional vector space, we can use the same definition to construct its dual space V**. What you're describing is the definition of V**, not V, so there's nothing circular about it.

Note that V is isomorphic to V**. Just define f:V→V** by f(v)v*=v*v for all v* in V*. This f is an isomorphism, and it's the reason why you can think of V** as "the same thing" as V.

In general relativity, V is the tangent space of spacetime M at some point p in M. So there's a different V for each p. In SR, we have the option to instead take spacetime M to be a vector space, and then there's no need to talk about tangent spaces.

One way to define the tangent space: Let C be the set of smooth functions from M into R. Define V to be the set of linear functions v:C→R such that v(fg)=v(f)g(p)+f(p)v(g) for all f,g in C. Define a vector space structure on V by (u+v)(f)=uf+vf and (av)f=a(vf). Each coordinate system defines a basis for this vector space. The basis vectors are the partial derivative operators defined this way:

Fredrik said:
If M is a manifold, U is an open subset of M, p is a point in U, and [itex]x:U\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n[/itex] is a coordinate system, then the partial derivative operators

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}\bigg|_p[/tex]

are basis vectors of the tangent space TpM of M at p.

These operators are defined by their action on functions [itex]f:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}[/itex].

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}\bigg|_p f=(f\circ x^{-1}),_\mu(x(p))[/tex]

where [itex],_\mu[/itex] denotes the partial derivate of the function, with respect to the [itex]\mu[/itex]th variable.
(Edit: I should have said smooth functions.)

The proof of that involves a trick that you can find in Wald's GR book or Isham's differential geometry book, if you're interested.

Another option is discussed here. The vector spaces defined by these two definitions are isomorphic, so it doesn't matter which one of them we think of as "the" tangent space at p.

One more detail that may be of interest to you:
Fredrik said:
If an inner product is defined on V, you can use it to define an isomorphism between V and V*. Just let x* be the map [itex]y\mapsto \langle x,y\rangle[/itex]. Now the map [itex]x\mapsto x^*[/itex] is an isomorphism.
It actually doesn't have to be an inner product. Any symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form (like the metric tensor) will do.
 
Last edited:

Related to Defining Vector: Beyond Schutz's Treatment in G. Relativity

1. What is a vector in the context of general relativity?

A vector in general relativity is a mathematical object that represents a quantity that has both magnitude and direction. In the context of general relativity, vectors are used to describe physical quantities such as velocity, acceleration, and force.

2. How does Schutz's treatment define vectors in general relativity?

Schutz's treatment defines vectors in general relativity as objects that transform according to specific rules under coordinate transformations. This definition is based on the principle of general covariance, which states that the laws of physics should be the same in all coordinate systems.

3. What are the limitations of Schutz's treatment in defining vectors in general relativity?

While Schutz's treatment provides a solid foundation for defining vectors in general relativity, it does have some limitations. One limitation is that it only applies to spacetimes that are globally hyperbolic. Additionally, it does not account for non-linear transformations.

4. How can vectors be defined beyond Schutz's treatment in general relativity?

There are several approaches to defining vectors beyond Schutz's treatment in general relativity. One approach is to use the concept of a tangent space to define vectors at specific points in spacetime. Another approach is to use differential geometry to define vectors as elements of tangent bundles.

5. How do vectors play a role in general relativity?

Vectors play a crucial role in general relativity as they allow us to describe physical quantities and their transformations in a geometrically consistent way. They are used to express the laws of physics, such as Einstein's field equations, which describe the curvature of spacetime in the presence of matter and energy.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
81
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
Back
Top