3

When defining the properties of scalar functions that live in manifold $M$ in a less formal way, the following is said:

"We no longer refer to a covering by coordinate patches. Instead we conceive of the manifold as a set whose points may be described by many different coordinate systems, say ($x^0, x^1,...,x^{D-1}$) and ($x'^0,x'^1,...,x'^{D-1}$). Any 2 sets of coordinates are related by a set of $C^\infty$ functions, e.g $x^\mu(x^\nu)$ with non-singular Jacobian $\partial x'^{\mu}/\partial x^{\nu}$."

1) Why can we conceive of the manifold as a set whose points may be described by many different coordinate systems instead? What does this practically mean?

2) "Any 2 sets of coordinates are related by a set of $C^\infty$ functions, e.g $x^\mu(x^\nu)$ with non-singular Jacobian $\partial x'^{\mu}/\partial x^{\nu}$."

I don't get the example of $x^\mu(x^\nu)$ and how does it relate to what have been said just before it?

1 Answers1

5

Usually the abstract definition of a manifold starts with the assumption that $M$ is a metrizable topological space, and continues with a description of the covering by coordinate patches.

Each coordinate patch has the form of an open subset $U \subset M$ together with a coordinate homeomorphism $\phi : U \to V \subset \mathbb{R}^D$ where $V \subset \mathbb{R}^D$ is an open subset. The "coordinate system" that is associated to this data is simply the coordinate system $(x^0,\ldots,x^{D-1})$ on $\mathbb{R}^D$ restricted to $V$ and pulled back via the function $\phi$ to the open set $U$.

One of the properties in the definition is that there exist a set of coordinate patches of this form, denoted $\{\phi_i : U_i \to V_i\}_{i \in I}$, such that $$\cup_{i \in I} U_i = M $$ It is quite possible, in fact it is almost inevitable, that there exist different coordinate patches $U_i,U_j$ such that $U_i \cap U_j \ne \emptyset$. So a point $p \in U_i \cap U_j$ will be described by two "different coordinate systems", namely the coordinates obtained by pulling back $\phi_i$, and the coordinates obtained by pulling back $\phi_j$. The "coordinate change map" (which you refer to using the notation $x^\mu(x^\nu)$) is then simply the map $$\phi_i(U_i \cap U_j) \xrightarrow{\phi_j \phi_i^{-1}} \phi_j(U_i \cap U_j) $$ and it is this map which is required to have nonsingular Jacobian.

For a simple example in 1-dimension where the Jacobian is just the ordinary derivative from first semester Calculus, think of two coordinate patches on the unit circle in the $xy$ plane, the first being the open upper semicircle using the $x$ coordinate, and the second being the open right semicircle using the $y$ coordinate. These two coordinate patches overlap in the open first quadrant of the circle, giving one coordinate $0<x<1$ and another coordinate $1>y>0$ which are related by the change of coordinate mapping $$y(x) = \sqrt{1-x^2} $$ whose Jacobian $\frac{d}{dx} \sqrt{1-x^2}$ is nonsingular on the interval $0<x<1$.

Lee Mosher
  • 120,280
  • This could have never been said better! I finally get this.

    I have small questions though: 1)You said " and it is this map which is required to have nonsingular Jacobian". Is nonsingularity a condition that has to be valid beforehand or is it a consequence? 2) Why do people define "Coordinate change map", since I am learning Physics, I was thinking if there is any need for that. (This question could be skipped since this is a maths forum)

    – PhilosophicalPhysics May 21 '15 at 17:46
  • 3)In your fourth paragraph, "namely the coordinates obtained by pulling back $ϕ_i$, and the coordinates obtained by pulling back $ϕ_j$." Is it the coordinate that is obtained by the pull back or is it the patch? Just confused by the English here. – PhilosophicalPhysics May 21 '15 at 17:47
  • 1
    @PhilosophicalPhysics: 1) Nonsingularity is a condition in the definition of a manifold: at each point in the domain of each coordinate change map, the Jacobian is required to be nonsingular. – Lee Mosher May 21 '15 at 19:51
  • 1
    @PhilosophicalPhysics: 2) Coordinate change maps occur all the time is physics. Your notation $x^\mu(x^\nu)$ is simply the physics notation for a coordinate change map: it inputs $D$ coordinates $(x^\nu_0,…,x^\nu_{D-1})$ and it outputs $D$ coordinates $(x^\mu_0,…,x^\mu_{D-1})$. All this jazz $$\phi_i(U_i \cap U_j) \xrightarrow{\phi_j \phi_i^{-1}} \phi_j(U_i \cap U_j)$$ is simply the mathematics notation for the coordinate change map. – Lee Mosher May 21 '15 at 19:55
  • @PhilosophicalPhysics: 3) I was just trying to cut down on my number of words at that stage, at the (evidently realized) risk of confusion. A mathematician would formally think of the first coordinate on $\mathbb{R}^D$ ``pulled back'' to $U_i$ as a function $U_i \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ obtained by composing the function $U_i \xrightarrow{\phi_i} V_i$ with the function defined on $V_i \subset \mathbb{R}^D$ that simply reads the first coordinate of $\mathbb{R}^D$. – Lee Mosher May 21 '15 at 20:00
  • Thanks a lot, Lee. This was great! – PhilosophicalPhysics May 21 '15 at 20:02
  • 1
    @PhilosophicalPhysics: np, glad to help. – Lee Mosher May 21 '15 at 20:04
  • @LeeMosher Hi Lee, may I know how did you figure out the fact that the function of $x$ and $y$ are related as $y(x)=\sqrt{1-x^2}$? Thank you. – Beyond-formulas Jan 13 '16 at 03:33
  • @Beyond-formulas: Solve the equation of the circle $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ for $y$ in the first quadrant. – Lee Mosher Jan 13 '16 at 03:36
  • Ah sorry didn't see that, and in this example of the unit circle, what are they that are supposed to be the maps to $\mathbb{R}^n$? I mean you have said that the patches are mapped via a certain map to $\mathbb{R}^n$. What designates the local coordinates in your example? @LeeMosher – Beyond-formulas Jan 13 '16 at 03:40
  • In $\mathbb{R}^n$, use the equation of the sphere $S^{n-1} \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ in place of the equation of the circle $S^1 \subset \mathbb{R}^2$. – Lee Mosher Jan 13 '16 at 14:40