- #1
Afonso Campos
- 29
- 0
Forgive me for asking a rather silly question, but I have thinking about the following definition of the extrinsic curvature ##\mathcal{K}_{ij}## of a sub-manifold (say, a boundary ##\partial M## of a manifold ##M##):
$$\mathcal{K}_{ij} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_{n}h_{ij} = \nabla_{(i}n_{j)},$$
where ##n## is the inward-pointing unit normal to ##\partial M## and ##h_{ij}## is the induced metric on ##\partial M##.
Is there an intuitive way to understand why the above must be the definition of the extrinsic curvature of a submanifold?
$$\mathcal{K}_{ij} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_{n}h_{ij} = \nabla_{(i}n_{j)},$$
where ##n## is the inward-pointing unit normal to ##\partial M## and ##h_{ij}## is the induced metric on ##\partial M##.
Is there an intuitive way to understand why the above must be the definition of the extrinsic curvature of a submanifold?