What is the curvature of this metric?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This is a follow up to a question about a four dimensional geometry that's suggested by data I've collected.
If I have a surface defined by:$$ds^2=-(phi^2t^2)dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$$where $phi$ is a constant with units of $km$ $s^-2$, t is time ($s$), x, y and z are spatial coordiantes (in $km$), how would I calculate the curvature of the spatial surface?
Is the curvature zero (that is, does this metric describe perfectly flat space)?
differential-geometry differential-topology
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This is a follow up to a question about a four dimensional geometry that's suggested by data I've collected.
If I have a surface defined by:$$ds^2=-(phi^2t^2)dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$$where $phi$ is a constant with units of $km$ $s^-2$, t is time ($s$), x, y and z are spatial coordiantes (in $km$), how would I calculate the curvature of the spatial surface?
Is the curvature zero (that is, does this metric describe perfectly flat space)?
differential-geometry differential-topology
I don't understand what your formula is supposed to mean. Usually, the notation $ds^2$ stands for a Riemannian metric, that is, a positive definite symmetric $2$-tensor field. But $dt^4$ is a $4$-tensor, so it doesn't make sense to add it to a bunch of $2$-tensors. And I have no idea how that formula is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 17:57
@JackLee - So sorry, I've updated the question to include the units of the constant. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:11
It still doesn't make mathematical sense, for the same reason I mentioned above. Maybe it would help if you explain exactly how this equation is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 18:13
Why doesn't it make sense? The $phi^2dt^4$ expression is a 2-tensors (that is, it has units of $km^2$, like the rest of the equation.)
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:16
You should reference the question which lead to this. Having that context makes answering this question (or pointing out mistakes in the way you formulated it) more likely.
â MvG
Jan 3 at 18:23
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This is a follow up to a question about a four dimensional geometry that's suggested by data I've collected.
If I have a surface defined by:$$ds^2=-(phi^2t^2)dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$$where $phi$ is a constant with units of $km$ $s^-2$, t is time ($s$), x, y and z are spatial coordiantes (in $km$), how would I calculate the curvature of the spatial surface?
Is the curvature zero (that is, does this metric describe perfectly flat space)?
differential-geometry differential-topology
This is a follow up to a question about a four dimensional geometry that's suggested by data I've collected.
If I have a surface defined by:$$ds^2=-(phi^2t^2)dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$$where $phi$ is a constant with units of $km$ $s^-2$, t is time ($s$), x, y and z are spatial coordiantes (in $km$), how would I calculate the curvature of the spatial surface?
Is the curvature zero (that is, does this metric describe perfectly flat space)?
differential-geometry differential-topology
differential-geometry differential-topology
edited Aug 31 at 1:16
asked Jan 3 at 13:46
Donald Airey
5510
5510
I don't understand what your formula is supposed to mean. Usually, the notation $ds^2$ stands for a Riemannian metric, that is, a positive definite symmetric $2$-tensor field. But $dt^4$ is a $4$-tensor, so it doesn't make sense to add it to a bunch of $2$-tensors. And I have no idea how that formula is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 17:57
@JackLee - So sorry, I've updated the question to include the units of the constant. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:11
It still doesn't make mathematical sense, for the same reason I mentioned above. Maybe it would help if you explain exactly how this equation is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 18:13
Why doesn't it make sense? The $phi^2dt^4$ expression is a 2-tensors (that is, it has units of $km^2$, like the rest of the equation.)
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:16
You should reference the question which lead to this. Having that context makes answering this question (or pointing out mistakes in the way you formulated it) more likely.
â MvG
Jan 3 at 18:23
 |Â
show 3 more comments
I don't understand what your formula is supposed to mean. Usually, the notation $ds^2$ stands for a Riemannian metric, that is, a positive definite symmetric $2$-tensor field. But $dt^4$ is a $4$-tensor, so it doesn't make sense to add it to a bunch of $2$-tensors. And I have no idea how that formula is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 17:57
@JackLee - So sorry, I've updated the question to include the units of the constant. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:11
It still doesn't make mathematical sense, for the same reason I mentioned above. Maybe it would help if you explain exactly how this equation is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 18:13
Why doesn't it make sense? The $phi^2dt^4$ expression is a 2-tensors (that is, it has units of $km^2$, like the rest of the equation.)
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:16
You should reference the question which lead to this. Having that context makes answering this question (or pointing out mistakes in the way you formulated it) more likely.
â MvG
Jan 3 at 18:23
I don't understand what your formula is supposed to mean. Usually, the notation $ds^2$ stands for a Riemannian metric, that is, a positive definite symmetric $2$-tensor field. But $dt^4$ is a $4$-tensor, so it doesn't make sense to add it to a bunch of $2$-tensors. And I have no idea how that formula is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 17:57
I don't understand what your formula is supposed to mean. Usually, the notation $ds^2$ stands for a Riemannian metric, that is, a positive definite symmetric $2$-tensor field. But $dt^4$ is a $4$-tensor, so it doesn't make sense to add it to a bunch of $2$-tensors. And I have no idea how that formula is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 17:57
@JackLee - So sorry, I've updated the question to include the units of the constant. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:11
@JackLee - So sorry, I've updated the question to include the units of the constant. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:11
It still doesn't make mathematical sense, for the same reason I mentioned above. Maybe it would help if you explain exactly how this equation is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 18:13
It still doesn't make mathematical sense, for the same reason I mentioned above. Maybe it would help if you explain exactly how this equation is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 18:13
Why doesn't it make sense? The $phi^2dt^4$ expression is a 2-tensors (that is, it has units of $km^2$, like the rest of the equation.)
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:16
Why doesn't it make sense? The $phi^2dt^4$ expression is a 2-tensors (that is, it has units of $km^2$, like the rest of the equation.)
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:16
You should reference the question which lead to this. Having that context makes answering this question (or pointing out mistakes in the way you formulated it) more likely.
â MvG
Jan 3 at 18:23
You should reference the question which lead to this. Having that context makes answering this question (or pointing out mistakes in the way you formulated it) more likely.
â MvG
Jan 3 at 18:23
 |Â
show 3 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2590224%2fwhat-is-the-curvature-of-this-metric%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I don't understand what your formula is supposed to mean. Usually, the notation $ds^2$ stands for a Riemannian metric, that is, a positive definite symmetric $2$-tensor field. But $dt^4$ is a $4$-tensor, so it doesn't make sense to add it to a bunch of $2$-tensors. And I have no idea how that formula is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 17:57
@JackLee - So sorry, I've updated the question to include the units of the constant. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:11
It still doesn't make mathematical sense, for the same reason I mentioned above. Maybe it would help if you explain exactly how this equation is supposed to define a surface.
â Jack Lee
Jan 3 at 18:13
Why doesn't it make sense? The $phi^2dt^4$ expression is a 2-tensors (that is, it has units of $km^2$, like the rest of the equation.)
â Donald Airey
Jan 3 at 18:16
You should reference the question which lead to this. Having that context makes answering this question (or pointing out mistakes in the way you formulated it) more likely.
â MvG
Jan 3 at 18:23