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

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

Attributions

(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 ...

  Geometrical point of view of the harmonic constraints ($\Delta g_{ij}=0$) in General Relativity

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
1602 views

What does it mean, from the geometrical point of view, use (in General Relativity) of the constraints on the metric tensor's coefficients such that $\Delta g_{ij}=0$? (where $\Delta$ is the Beltrami-Laplace Operator, $g_{ij}$ the metric tensor).
With $\Delta g_{ij}=0$, I mean the Laplace-Beltrami operator, applied componentwise to the components of the metric tensor.

Thank you in advance!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-07-18 16:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alexander Pigazzini
asked Jul 4, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Alexander Pigazzini (30 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Jul 18, 2016
Most voted comments show all comments
You say "in General Relativity," but there is no such constraint that is applied generically in general relativity. In the very early days of GR, it was thought that the metric's determinant needed to be constrained to be -1 everywhere. Today, it is often convenient to make a particular choice of gauge, such as harmonic coordinates en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_coordinate_condition . But the only constraint on the metric that is absolutely mandatory in the standard modern formulation of GR is that it not be degenerate.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-07-18 16:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
Another little question...in this particular kind of metric (for example in dimension 2) where $\Delta g=0$ the curvature isn't necessary zero, is correct?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-07-18 16:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alexander Pigazzini
@AlexanderPigazzini: The condition $\Delta g_{ij} = 0$ does not constrain the curvature in any simple way. When $n=2$, there will be some very high order polynomial relation among $K$ and its first $m$ covariant derivatives that characterizes the existence of such a coordinate system, but I don't know what that is explicitly.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-07-18 16:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Robert Bryant
Thank you very much!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-07-18 16:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alexander Pigazzini

Slightly off-topic, but the harmonic conditions  with $\square$ instead of $\Delta$ can be interpreted as the gravitation field equations (amongst others) in a flat Minkowsky space-time; see more details in https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4393

Most recent comments show all comments
thanks prof. Bryant, then from what I understand, there is no interest in a metric of this type, am I right? ...I mean that there isn't interest in $g=h(x,y)(dx^2+dy^2)$ where $h>0$ and satisfies $h_{xx}+h_{yy}=0$, or wrong?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-07-18 16:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alexander Pigazzini
@AlexanderPigazzini: I wouldn't say that there is no interest, it's just of specialized interest. There was a time when Liouville metrics were of great interest indeed, but now they are mainly of interest to the integrable systems folks, not so much in general relativity.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-07-18 16:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Robert Bryant

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$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
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
...