Curved Space

An Introduction to Curved Spaces
Physics 231
Surjeet Rajendran
Why Curved Space?

Special Relativity beautifully describes electromagnetism
@ F = J
@[ F
=0
The theory is Lorentz invariant, preserves the fact that

signals do not travel faster than the speed of light
Why Curved Space?

@ F = J
@[ F
=0

Mm
Newtonian Gravity :F = GN 2 r
r
Looks a lot like electromagnetism.

Is this Lorentz invariant? Why?
Why Curved Space?

@ F = J
@[ F
=0

Mm
r

Why not do something similar for gravity?
Why Curved Space?

@ F = J
@[ F
=0

Mm
r

Why not do something similar for gravity?
In fact, we can!
First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Question: Electromagnetism is represented by a vector potential
A and field strength F

How many indices represent gravity?


Why does the electromagnetic vector potential have 1 index?


Electromagnetism couples to a charge current J
J is a nice four vector. And naturally couples to A

(J A )


Electromagnetism couples to a charge current J
J is a nice four vector. And naturally couples to A

(J A )
Gravity couples to mass.

In special relativity, mass is equivalent to energy and is
represented by the stress-energy tensor

But T
has two indices.

But T
has two indices.
Hard to couple a gravitational vector potential
g
A
to T

But T
has two indices.

i .e. cant write Ag T
g
A
to T

But T
has two indices.

Two Possibilities
g
A
to T

But T
has two indices.
g
A
Two Possibilities
A scalar potential
coupling to T :
to T

But T
has two indices.
g
A
to T
Two Possibilities
A scalar potential coupling to T : T
A symmetric tensor potential h coupling to T : h T

Two Possibilities
h T

Two Possibilities
(Nordstrom)
h T

Two Possibilities
h T
(Nordstrom)
Exercise: Show that in this theory, light does not couple to
gravity

Two Possibilities
(Nordstrom)
Gravity does not couple to light,
eventhough it is a form of energy
Einstein did not like this kind
of discrimination. Felt gravitation
should be universal
h T

Two Possibilities
(Nordstrom)
h T
Einstein could have pursued this coupling.

Done lots of algebra to see what it
might mean
should be universal

Two Possibilities
(Nordstrom)
h T
Einstein could have pursued this coupling.

Done lots of algebra to see what it
might mean
Instead, picked a deep, intuitive approach
that gave him the right answer
should be universal

Two Possibilities
(Nordstrom)
should be universal
h T
Picked a deep, intuitive approach
Computation 6= Comprehension

Two Possibilities
(Nordstrom)
h T
Einstein did not like this kind As we will see later, this turns out to
be the right coupling
should be universal

Two Possibilities
(Nordstrom)
h T
Einstein did not like this kind As we will see later, this turns out to
be the right coupling
should be universal
Relativistic gravitation can be obtained purely from flat space-time notions. Its
physical effects are easier to grasp with Einsteins curved space view-point
Equivalence Principle
Everything falls at the same rate under gravity,
irrespective of its mass or composition.
This is strange....
but
Every body perseveres in its state
of being at rest or of moving
uniformly straight forward except
insofar as it is being compelled to
change its state by forces
impressed.
Maybe things are just all moving along in straight lines.

But, straight lines in a curved space.
Everything falls at the same rate under gravity,
irrespective of its mass or composition.
This is strange....
but
Every body perseveres in its state
of being at rest or of moving
uniformly straight forward except
insofar as it is being compelled to
change its state by forces
impressed.
Maybe things are just all moving along in straight lines.

But, straight lines in a curved space.
True in a deeper sense
One of the deep concepts from special relativity is that we should not rely on
abstract philosophical notions but rather ask what observers can physically
measure
measure
Observers have to use physical devices to make measurements
measure
For forces like electromagnetism, we can conceive of physical devices (such as
neutral bodies) that do not respond to electromagnetism
measure
This allows us to define inertial observers who are not affected by
electromagnetic forces and whose motion is thus different from accelerated
observers who experience electromagnetism
measure
This allows us to define inertial observers who are not affected by
electromagnetic forces and whose motion is thus different from accelerated
observers who experience electromagnetism
But, if everything falls the same way under gravity, how can we even separate
an inertial observer from an observer who is freely falling under gravity?
measure
But is it true that all freely falling observers are equivalent?
measure
P2
P1
No
P1, P2 are at different distances with respect to the
gravitating earth.
They will fall differently.
measure
P2
P1
No
P1, P2 are at different distances with respect to the
gravitating earth.
They will fall differently.
So P1 can look at P2 and realize that he is falling under gravity
measure
P2
P1
No
What if P1 and P2 are inside elevators that prevent them
from looking outside and seeing each other?
measure
P2
P1
No
If the observers restrict themselves to solely local
measurements, they cannot know if they are inertial or not
measure
P2
P1
No
Exercise: Devise an experiment to show this
P2
P1
This is certainly true for particle mechanics. But what about other forces of
nature like electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces? Or even the
forces caused by the recently discovered Higgs boson?
Einsteins Assertion
The laws of nature are such that a freely falling observer in a gravitational field
who only relies on local measurements cannot know that he is around a
gravitational field. His local observations will be those of an inertial observer
in Minkowski space.
What then is gravitation?

Einsteins Assertion
P1 P2
The laws of nature are such that a freely falling

observer in a gravitational field who only relies on
local measurements cannot know that he is around a
gravitational field. His local observations will be those
of an inertial observer in Minkowski space.
What if P2 is very close to P1?

P1 can recognize gravity by making measurements
sufficiently close to him
These measurements can depart from those of inertial
observers in Minkowski space
Gravitation is then the deviations from Minkowski space that
the freely falling observer can locally measure

P2
P1
Under gravity, freely falling observers (like P2) are

inertial

P2
P1

inertial
What about observers like P1 who are at rest with
respect to the surface of the earth?

P2
P1

inertial
P1 observes gravity (he can just drop a coin and see it
fall)
But, even though P1 is at rest, he is acted upon by non-gravitational

forces in order to cancel the gravitational force on him from the Earth.

P2
P1

inertial
fall)

In fact, local observations made by P1 are in-distinguishable from
that of an accelerated platform in Minkowski space

P2
P1

inertial
fall)

Exercise: Show this in a simple setup

P2
P1

inertial
fall)

Einstein: This is not just true for particle mechanics, but

true for all forces of nature
Consequences
P2
P1
If everything falls the same way under gravity, much like

any other free falling observer (P2) light will also fall
relative to an observer (P1) on the ground
Consequences
P2
P1

Consequences
P2
P1

Consequences
P2
P3
P1

Observer P3 is also at rest with respect to the surface
of the earth (and observer P1). These are accelerated
observers. Hence, local measurements such as the
ticking rates of their clocks will not be equal
(consequence of special relativity)
Consequences
P2
P3
P1

If P1 and P3 send light signals back and forth, that is
much like accelerated observers sending signals back
and forth. The light signals will be doppler shifted.
Consequences
P2
P3
P1

If P1 and P3 send light signals back and forth, that is
much like accelerated observers sending signals back
and forth. The light signals will be doppler shifted.
Exercise: Compute this Doppler shift. Is it compatible with

elementary notions of flat space?
Are these principles true?

Freely falling observers are inertial.
They cannot do a local measurement to realize that they
are in a gravitational field
An observer who is at rest on the surface of the earth is
an accelerated observer
Are these principles true?

Freely falling observers are inertial.
They cannot do a local measurement to realize that they
are in a gravitational field
An observer who is at rest on the surface of the earth is
an accelerated observer
e-
Test Case
Take a charged particle.
Let it freely fall. It is inertial.
Does it radiate?
Place a charged particle on the surface of the Earth. It is accelerated.

Does it radiate?
Summary
t
In special relativity, inertial observers were observers

on whom there were no external forces
t
x
x
Their inertial nature was global. One

observer could look at a distant inertial
observer and this observation will not
making him doubt his inertial nature.
Minkowski space was invariant under global Lorentz

transformations and spatial translations
Summary
Minkowski space was invariant under global Lorentz
transformations and spatial translations
General Relativity (Relativistic Gravitation)

P2
P1
The presence of the earth breaks this global

symmetry.
Since all observers feel gravity, this breaks these
global symmetries for all observers
Local measurements of freely falling observers are
equivalent to those of inertial observers in
Minkowski space
Gravity appears to a local observer as a deviation
from Minkowski space
These properties imply that gravity must curve
space-time (doppler shift of light)
How do we make these quantitative?

In a small, local region around them, freely falling observers
experience Minkowski (or flat) space-time
Gravitation is represented by deviations from Minkowski
(or flatness) in this local region
Further, gravity must curve space-time
How do we make these quantitative?

In a small, local region around them, freely falling observers
experience Minkowski (or flat) space-time
Gravitation is represented by deviations from Minkowski
(or flatness) in this local region
Further, gravity must curve space-time
P
This is a lot like...

the flatness of the Earth!
Near the point P, the Earth looks very flat. The fact that it is
curved shows up in small deviations of the flat geometry
The Geometry of Curved Spaces

PP
Near the point P, the Earth looks very flat.

The fact that it is curved shows up in small deviations of
flat geometry
Questions
How do we precisely define the fact that near the point P
the earth is very flat? (Manifolds)
How do our favorite notions from flat space such as vectors
and tensors translate to curved space?
What quantities capture the deviation from flat space at the
point P? (this after all is gravity - and the answer is
curvature)
How can different observers compare their measurements?
What do they agree on? What are the invariants?
Manifolds and the Geometry of Curved

Space
What do we want out of curved spaces?
We want to be able to describe objects like spheres, torii, Moebius strips...

There is a sense in which these objects have a dimensionality about them (for
example, all the objects above seem to be 2 dimensional)

P
P

There is a sense in which these objects have a dimensionality about them (for
example, all the objects above seem to be 2 dimensional)
Near any point P of the space, there should be a small enough region that
looks like it is flat space. In fact, the dimensionality of this flat space is tied
to the notion of the spaces dimensionality. For all the examples above,
small enough regions look like R2

P
P
We could of course describe them based on their embedding in flat space.

e.g. sphere is the set of points in R3 such that x2 + y2 + z2 = C

P
P

But this is cumbersome - these spaces have a life of their own independent
of how we embed them in a higher dimensional space. We want to be able
to describe those properties without worrying about the embedding or
how the higher dimensional space is parametrized.

P
P

But this is cumbersome - these spaces have a life of their own independent
of how we embed them in a higher dimensional space. We want to be able
to describe those properties without worrying about the embedding or
how the higher dimensional space is parametrized.
Further, as we will see, there are examples of 2d surfaces that cannot be
embedded in R3 (but can be embedded in R4). But they will have many other
properties shared by other 2d surfaces (rather than 3d spaces that are
more naturally embedded in R4)

P
P
Want to describe these spaces based purely on their intrinsic properties

rather than their extrinsic embedding. After all, we dont describe R2 on the
basis of how it fits into R3, but rather on its own merits. We should treat
these spaces in the same way.

P Q
Q
Q
P Q
Q
P Q
Want to describe these spaces based purely on their intrinsic properties

rather than their extrinsic embedding. After all, we dont describe R2 on the
basis of how it fits into R3, but rather on its own merits. We should treat
these spaces in the same way.
In Rn we know what it means for one point to be near another, based on
the Euclidean distance between points. But if we are not to make use of the
embedding, how do we intrinsically define the notion of one point (Q) being
near P so that P agrees that the geometry between P and Q is flat, unlike
say that point Q that is far from P and is hence allowed to be curved?

P Q
Q
Q
P Q
Q
P Q
One we have an intrinsic description where we can define how close one
point is to another, we would like to understand how to extend our usual
notions of continuity and differentiability for functions on these spaces.

P Q
Q
Q
P Q
Q
P Q
One we have an intrinsic description where we can define how close one
point is to another, we would like to understand how to extend our usual
notions of continuity and differentiability for functions on these spaces.
With that knowledge, we can talk about derivatives of such functions at a
local point P. These derivatives are linear and we will show that these
describe a vector space at P. This vector space will be used to generalize our
notions of vectors and tensors from flat space.
Manifold
U4 ,
U3 ,
U1 ,
3
U2 ,
The Set M
A chart or coordinate system consists of a subset U of M
along with a one to one map : U-> Rn such that that
image (U) is open in Rn
A set V is open in Rn if for any point x in V there is some r
so that any point y satisfying |x - y| < r is also in V
Manifold
U4 ,
U3 ,
U1 ,
3
U2 ,
The Set M
A chart or coordinate system consists of a subset U of M along with a one to
one map : U-> Rn such that that image (U) is open in Rn
An atlas is a collection of charts {U, } so that
1. The union of U is equal to M; i.e. the U cover M.
2. The charts are woven smoothly together; i.e. if two charts overlap
(U \ U ) R !
(U
is onto and continuous in Rn
\U )R
Manifold
U4 ,
U3 ,
U1 ,
3
U2 ,
The Set M
An atlas is a collection of charts {U, } that cover M and the charts are
woven together smoothly where they intersect
A manifold is simply a set M along with a maximal atlas, i.e. an atlas that
contains every possible such chart
Manifold
U4 ,
U3 ,
U1 ,
3
U2 ,
The Set M
An atlas is a collection of charts {U, } that cover M and the charts are
woven together smoothly where they intersect
A manifold is simply a set M along with a maximal atlas, i.e. an atlas that
contains every possible such chart
Basically, we use Rn to induce a topology on M
Manifold
U4 ,
U3 ,
U1 ,
3
U2 ,
Manifold Construction for

Physicists
Take the space M - for any point on the space find a one-to-one map that
takes points around that space into open sets in Rn
Find a set of maps that cover every point in the space. Make sure that where
they overlap, they overlap nicely
Manifold
U4 ,
U3 ,
U1 ,
3
U2 ,
Manifold Construction for

Physicists
Take the space M - for any point on the space find a one-to-one map that
takes points around that space into open sets in Rn
Find a set of maps that cover every point in the space. Make sure that where
they overlap, they overlap nicely
How do these notions fix the dimensionality of the space?
Examples
Take R2. Identify edges along the directions indicated
by the arrows and get new spaces.
Which of these are manifolds?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Examples
(a)
cylinder
(b)
(c)
(d)
Examples
(a)
(b)
cylinder
mobius strip
(c)
(d)
Examples
(a)
(b)
(c)
cylinder
mobius strip
torus
(d)
Examples
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
cylinder
mobius strip
torus
klein bottle
More Examples
(a)
(b)
(c)
More Examples
(a)
A chart that covers
the point of
intersection does
not map into open
sets
(b)
(c)
More Examples
(a)
A chart that covers
the point of
intersection does
not map into open
sets
(b)
The line is R1 and
the plane is R2. So
there is no way we
can have a cover.
(c)
More Examples
(a)
A chart that covers
the point of
intersection does
not map into open
sets
(b)
(c)
The line is R1 and

the plane is R2. So
there is no way we
can have a cover.
Smooth
construction from a
plane. This is a
manifold called the
Real Projective
Space RP2
Constructing Co-ordinate Charts

Example: Charts on a Sphere
Stereographic Projection
Sphere S2
embedded in
3
R
Plane R2
Place the sphere on top of the plane. From the north pole draw a straight-line in R3
through the sphere. This line intersects the sphere at one point and the plane at
another. The chart maps these two points together. Repeat from south pole to cover
north as well.
Next Class:Vectors, Tensors and Metric

Spaces
(chapter 2 of Carroll)

Curved Space

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curved Space

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction to Curved Spaces

Why Curved Space?

The theory is Lorentz invariant, preserves the fact that

Why Curved Space?

The theory is Lorentz invariant, preserves the fact that

Looks a lot like electromagnetism.

Why Curved Space?

The theory is Lorentz invariant, preserves the fact that

Looks a lot like electromagnetism.

Why Curved Space?

The theory is Lorentz invariant, preserves the fact that

Looks a lot like electromagnetism.

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

A and field strength F

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

A and field strength F

How many indices represent gravity?

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

A and field strength F

How many indices represent gravity?

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

A and field strength F

How many indices represent gravity?

J is a nice four vector. And naturally couples to A

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

A and field strength F

How many indices represent gravity?

J is a nice four vector. And naturally couples to A

Gravity couples to mass.

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

has two indices.

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

has two indices.

Hard to couple a gravitational vector potential

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

has two indices.

Hard to couple a gravitational vector potential

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

has two indices.

Hard to couple a gravitational vector potential

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

has two indices.

Hard to couple a gravitational vector potential

i .e. cant write Ag T

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

has two indices.

Hard to couple a gravitational vector potential

i .e. cant write Ag T

A symmetric tensor potential h coupling to T : h T

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

Einstein could have pursued this coupling.

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

Einstein could have pursued this coupling.

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

First Attempt at Relativistic Gravitation

Maybe things are just all moving along in straight lines.

Maybe things are just all moving along in straight lines.

So P1 can look at P2 and realize that he is falling under gravity