Argument for Existence of Normal Coordinates at a Point

In summary, Susskind argues that, for a given coordinate transformation, the first derivatives of the metric can always be chosen to be zero, but the second derivatives cannot. He does this by looking at the expansion of a point in terms of other nearby points.
  • #1
tomdodd4598
138
13
TL;DR Summary
Susskind makes an argument for the existence of a coordinate transformation which can transform the metric tensor into that of the flat metric with vanishing derivatives at a particular point, but I do not understand it...
Hey there,

I've been recently been going back over the basics of GR, differential geometry in particular. I was watching one of Susskind's lectures and did not understand the argument made here (26:33 - 35:40).

In short, the argument goes as follows (I think): we have some generic metric ##{ g }_{ m n }^{ ' }\left( y \right)##. Suppose we have a coordinate transformation that takes ##{ g }_{ m n }^{ ' }\left( y\right) \rightarrow { g }_{ m n }\left( x\right)## such that ##{ g }_{ m n }\left( X\right) ={ \delta }_{ m n }## for a particular point ##x=X##.

Susskind wants to show that, in general, the first derivatives, ##{ \partial }_{ r }{ g }_{ m n }\left( x\right)##, can be chosen to be zero, but the second derivatives, ##{ \partial }_{ r }{ \partial }_{ s }{ g }_{ \mu \nu }\left( x \right) ##, can not (that is, at ##x=X##).

He does this by looking at the expansion of ##x## in terms of ##y## about the point ##x=X##. For simplicity, he chooses ##{ X }^{ m }=0## and for the ##x## and ##y## coordinate systems to have the same origin: $${ x }^{ m }={ a }_{ r }^{ m }{ y }^{ r }+{ b }_{ rs }^{ m }{ y }^{ r }{ y }^{ s }+{ c }_{ rst }^{ m }{ y }^{ r }{ y }^{ s }{ y }^{ t }+\dots$$

The argument is (again, I think) that because (for the case of a four-dimensional space) ##{ \partial }_{ r }{ g }_{ m n }\left( x\right)=0## is 40 equations and ##{ b }_{ rs }^{ m }## consists of 40 variables, we can always choose values of ##{ b }_{ rs }^{ m }## that satisfy the equations. Meanwhile, ##{ \partial }_{ r }{ \partial }_{ s }{ g }_{ \mu \nu }\left( x \right) =0## is 160 equations, but ##{ c }_{ rst }^{ m }## consists of only 80 variables, so we do not have enough free parameters to force the second derivatives to all vanish.

The problem is that I simply don't see why the existence of 40 variables in that expansion means that we can satisfy the 40 equations. Is the connection a simple one or do I just have to do something like grind out the values of the derivatives at ##x=X## using the series expansion?

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
tomdodd4598 said:
The problem is that I simply don't see why the existence of 40 variables in that expansion means that we can satisfy the 40 equations. Is the connection a simple one or do I just have to do something like grind out the values of the derivatives at ##x=X## using the series expansion?
If I'm understanding your problem, the answer is straightforward linear algebra. You can always use equation 1 to eliminate variable 1 from the other 39 equations, leaving you with 39 equations in 39 variables. Rinse and repeat, and you'll end up with one equation, number 40, in one variable, also number 40. That solution can be substituted into the previous equation to get variable 39. Rinse and repeat. (There are more computationally efficient ways of doing this, but that's the conceptually simplest method.)

That process can fail in two ways. First is if there are more equations than variables. Then the process leads to several equations in one variable, which is generally not soluble. Second, it can fail if some of the equations are not linearly independent because at least one step will eliminate two or more variables from all remaining equations, leaving you with more equations than variables again. The first problem clearly doesn't arise here. The second would mean that some of your coordinate basis vectors aren't linearly independent, so also can't arise here by construction.
 
  • #3
Yep, I just brute-force wrote out the derivative (doing the transformation and then differentiating the whole thing as a series in ##y##) and discovered how the equations can be satisfied assuming, as you mention, linear independence. It was just that the way Susskind presented the argument made me think that is was clear through some sort of inspection.
 

1. What is the argument for the existence of normal coordinates at a point?

The argument for the existence of normal coordinates at a point is based on the concept of local coordinates, which are used to describe the geometry of a point in a given space. Normal coordinates are a special type of local coordinates that are defined by the metric tensor at a specific point, and they allow for a simpler and more intuitive understanding of the geometry of that point.

2. How are normal coordinates different from other types of coordinates?

Normal coordinates are unique in that they are defined by the metric tensor at a specific point, rather than being arbitrary or chosen for convenience. This allows for a more natural and geometrically meaningful representation of the point, making it easier to analyze and understand its properties.

3. What is the significance of normal coordinates in mathematics and physics?

Normal coordinates are an important tool in both mathematics and physics, particularly in the study of curved spaces and manifolds. They allow for a more intuitive understanding of the geometry of a point, and are often used in calculations and proofs involving the curvature of a space.

4. How are normal coordinates related to the concept of tangent spaces?

Normal coordinates are closely related to the concept of tangent spaces, as they are defined by the metric tensor at a specific point in a given space. Tangent spaces are used to describe the local geometry of a point on a curved surface, and normal coordinates provide a way to represent this geometry in a more intuitive and geometrically meaningful way.

5. Can normal coordinates be defined at every point in a space?

No, normal coordinates can only be defined at points where the metric tensor is non-singular. This means that they cannot be defined at points where the curvature of the space is too extreme, such as at a singularity. However, in most cases, normal coordinates can be defined at a large number of points in a given space.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
599
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
199
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
190
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top