Quantcast
  • 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.

News

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,953 questions , 1,403 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

How can the D'Alembertian of a field be interpreted intuitively?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
41 views

The D'Alembertian operator is defined as $$ \Box = g^{\nu\mu}\nabla_\nu\nabla_\mu $$ For the Minkowski metric in Cartesian coordinates that is $$ \Box=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2} $$

Can it be intuitively described, just as a gradient or divergence, curl or Laplacian may be?

I'm looking for something similar to the interpretation of a Laplacian given in this question and answer.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-29 05:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user MycrofD
asked Jun 2, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by MycrofD (10 points) [ no revision ]
I think it was Rudy Rucker who wrote that in 15 years trying, he "saw 4 d" spacetime for a total of 15 mins, and he didn't like the experience. Maybe the scalar properties are easier for some people to imagine, personally I can't do it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-29 05:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Acid Jazz

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

The operator is just $\partial_t^2-\nabla^2$. So it is the difference between a "temporal laplacian" and a "spatial laplacian". Since laplacian measures curvature, this is basically telling you the difference in curvature between the spatial and temporal variation of the field.

One reason this comes up in physics is in describing elastic sheets under tension. In an elastic sheet, if there is (spatial) curvature at a point, the tension in the sheet will pull the point in order to flatten out the curvature. Thus the point feels a force in the same direction as the curvature. So by newtons second law, the point on the sheet will accelerate, that is, have a second time derivative, in the direction of the curvature. This is why you would expect the difference in the "temporal laplacian" and "spatial laplacian" to be zero.

If this operator is non-zero, then it means the temporal and spatial variations are inconsistent with each other, and it looks like there is an external force acting on the point in your elastic sheet.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-29 05:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user NowIGetToLearnWhatAHeadIs
answered Jun 2, 2015 by NowIGetToLearnWhatAHeadIs (80 points) [ no revision ]
Is it anything like picking up a rubber mat and giving it a shake?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-29 05:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Duffield
@JohnDuffield Yes, I think that would be a good concrete example of the "elastic sheet" I was referring to in my answer.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-29 05:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user NowIGetToLearnWhatAHeadIs
Thanks. Have you read work by Percy Hammond concerning electromagnetic geometry? "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." I say this because curved spacetime is where space is inhomogeneous rather than curved. See Baez and Einstein, but people seem to think curved spacetime is curved space.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-29 05:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Duffield

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:
p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$Overflow
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
...