• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  How to understand the curvature of this metric?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Suppose we have the metric $ ds^2 = dr^2 + \alpha^2 d\phi^2$, where $\alpha$ is a constant, $0 \leq r \leq \infty$, $ 0 \leq \phi \leq 2 \pi$ and we identify points $\phi = 0$ with points $\phi = 2\pi$.

Now since we have a constant metric the Christoffel symbols are zero and thus so to is the curvature tensor. So this should be flat space. When I try to find the length along radial paths from $0$ to $R$ I find the length to be $R$, but when I find the length of fixed radius paths from $0$ to $2\pi$ I find them to be of length $2\pi \alpha$. So regardless of the position in the $r$ direction we have fixed circumference, thus it seems like this space can be embedded in 3D cylindrical coordinates as a cylinder.

Question 1: Is the above correct? If it is, why are cylinders flat but not spheres or saddle points? Intuitively is it because flattening a cylinder only introduces folds where as a sphere would have complex deformations?

Question 2: If you draw a sphere in spherical coordinates where $r$, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are all draw at right angles a sphere would look like a rectangle with relevant sides of $\theta$ and $\phi$ identified. Since a rectangle looks flat to me, how can you be sure that you are embedding in such a way as to visualise the curvature? Is it that any coordinates where the sides are identified will reveal the curvature?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-17 07:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user murphc05
asked Jun 15, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by murphc05 (10 points) [ no revision ]
This is simple differential geometry: a cylinder has only one principal curvature non-zero, a sphere has both of them and so do saddle points, therefore Gauss curvature, which is the product of principal curvatures, must be zero only for the cylinder.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-17 07:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user auxsvr
Partially regarding question two: There are two notions of curvature, extrinsic and intrinsic. The latter is described by the Riemann curvature, and attempting to visualize why a sphere is curved in that respect, and a cylinder is not is somewhat difficult, as our intuitive notion of curvature we were taught was extrinsic.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-17 07:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user JamalS

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

To answer the first question:

This is the line element for a cylinder though the variable names might make more sense when the line element is written as, $ds^2 = dz^2 + r^2 d\phi^2$, where $r$ is a constant. In this context $z$ is the elevation on the cylinder, $r$ is the radius of the cylinder, $\phi$ is the angle which wraps around the cylinder.

Cylinders are flat because they can be cut and unfolded, making them into a rectangular sheet, without stretching the material of the cylinder. More formally there exists an isometric transformation from the cylinder to the plane.  The identification of $\phi=0$ with $\phi=2\pi$ is a topological property of the cylinder which doesn't necessarily say anything about its curvature.

To be clear when I say that a transformation is isometric I meant that it preserves the relative distances of points as measured locally within the manifold. Distances measured through the embedding space are irrelevant.

Now suppose we wanted to map the plane to the sphere. We might start by turning the plane into a cylinder since we know we can do isometrically. To turn the cylinder into a sphere we would have to identify all the points on the rim at the top of the cylinder. The problem with this last identification is that it sends points that were formerly a finite distance apart to the same location meaning that the metric cannot have been preserved.

The above example isn't really a proof that there is not isometric mapping from a plane to a sphere, but I think it at least gives some insight into what is going on.

To answer the second question:

It looks like you are thinking of Identifying $\theta=0$ with $\theta=\pi$ and $\phi=0$ with $\phi=2\pi$ which would not form a sphere. Instead this would form a torus.

To form a sphere from $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi$ and $0\leq \phi \leq 2\pi$:

  • For $ 0 < \theta < 2\pi $ identify $\phi=0$ with $\phi = 2\pi$.
  • For $\theta = 0 $ identify all values of $\phi$ with a single point.
  • For $\theta = \pi $ identify all values of $\phi$ with a single point.

An important thing to realize at this point is that we still don't have a proper sphere because we haven't defined a metric. As it stands our manifold could just be some deflated beach ball. 

One line element which would be consistent with the boundary conditions is,

$$ds^2 = d\theta^2 + \theta(\pi-\theta) d\phi^2, $$

which is not the metric of a $2$-Sphere.

answered Jun 18, 2014 by Spencer (30 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jun 18, 2014 by Spencer

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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights