• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,600 questions , 1,219 unanswered
4,602 answers , 19,547 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
423 active unimported users
More ...

First and second fundamental forms

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

I'm writing notes about the 3+1 formalism in general relativity, for myself. Inevitably I came across the notions of first and second fundamental forms. Mathematically, it is clear how these objects are defined: ($M$ is a 4-dim manifold with metric $g$, $\Sigma$ a hypersurface of $M$)

The first fundamental form is the induced metric on $\Sigma$, also given by the pullback of the spacetime metric $g$.

The second fundamental form $K: T_{p}(\Sigma)\times T_{p}(\Sigma)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is given through the Weingarten map $\chi$, i.e. $(u,v)\mapsto -u\cdot \chi(v)$.

Now, I'm having difficulties with underlying physcial intuition for these two objects (especially the second fundamental form). Is there a way for a physicist to "visualise" them in a way? What kind of objects are these forms exactly?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:27 (UCT), posted by SE-user ConciseAndClear

asked Apr 30, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by ConciseAndClear (30 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Mar 25, 2014 by dimension10

2 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

For the first fundamental form - if you've got two vectors tangent to $\Sigma$, and $\Sigma$ is embedded in $M$, and $M$ has a metric, just use the embedding to consider the vectors as living tangent to $M$ and use $M$'s metric to compute their inner product.

For the second fundamental form, basically, if you imagine a two surface $\Sigma$ embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$, and you imagine the normals as arrows orthogonal to $\Sigma$ sticking out like a hedgehog's spines. Then if the surface is gently curved, the normals dont change much as you go from a point $x$ on $\Sigma$ to another point $x'$ on $\Sigma$ infinitesimally separated from $x$ by a vector tangent to $\Sigma$. Conversely if the embedding is highly curved, the normals change a lot when you do this small displacement.

The Weingarten map, your $\chi$, is just the map $$u\rightarrow \nabla_un $$ where $n$ is the normal to $\Sigma$ and $u$ is tangent to $\Sigma$, and this encodes how much the normals are changing when you nudge by $u$ along $\Sigma$.

The 2nd FF, or "extrinsic curvature" is just another way of representing the information in the Weingarten map. Explicitly, it's a bilinear form which maps a pair of vectors $u,v$ tangent to $\Sigma$ to a number $-u.\chi(v)$ ($\chi(v)$ is also tangent to $\Sigma$ so this makes sense).

BTW, since you're studying 3+1, this reference (which came up in one of Alex Nelson's posts), is really informative and steers you through the minefield of conflicting approaches.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:27 (UCT), posted by SE-user twistor59
answered Apr 30, 2013 by twistor59 (2,490 points) [ no revision ]
thank you very much twistor59! that's exactly the kind of explanation I wanted!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:27 (UCT), posted by SE-user ConciseAndClear
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

To add a bit of fluff to twistor59's answer, let's take a bird's eye view of Riemannian geometry.

The Riemannian metric gives us the notion of lengths and angles as well as the concept of straight lines (geodesics).

Any submanifold inherits these notions from the ambient space, made explicit via the first fundamental form, which makes the submanifold is a Riemannian manifold in its own right.

As such, it comes with the notion of intrinsic curvature, eg manifest in the sum of the angles of a triagle formed by straight lines, which is independent of the embedding into any larger space.

However, there's a second notion of curvature, the extrinsic one, which does make use of this embedding, eg via normal vectors, osculating circles or approximation by paraboloids. The second fundamental form is of this type.

These different notions of curvature are of course related: You can get the intrinsic curvatue of a submanifold $N\hookrightarrow M$ (measured by the Riemann curvature tensor $R_N$) from its extrinsic curvature (measured by the second fundamental form $\mathrm{II}$) and the intrinsic curvature $R_M$ of the ambient space via $$ \langle R_N(u,v)w,z\rangle = \langle R_M(u,v)w,z\rangle+\langle \mathrm I\!\mathrm I(u,z),\mathrm I\!\mathrm I(v,w)\rangle-\langle \mathrm I\!\mathrm I(u,w),\mathrm I\!\mathrm I(v,z)\rangle $$ (The formula was taken from this Wikipedia article).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:27 (UCT), posted by SE-user Christoph
answered Apr 30, 2013 by Christoph (210 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights