Talk:Metric tensor (general relativity)
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|To-do list for Metric tensor (general relativity):|
I cut out the material on the volume form which properly belongs at volume form. Here it is for reference:
where D is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are eigenvalues of [g]: . (Note that Λ can be chosen so that the eigenvalues are in numerical order, D00 being the smallest.) Then there is a diagonal matrix V which "unitizes" D, i.e. which applies the mapping to the diagonal elements of D. Such matrix V has diagonal elements
and for a given manifold, the trace of [η] will be the same for all points and is referred to as the signature of the metric. (A signature of +2 is synonymous with a signature of (− + + +). ) This matrix [η] has the components of the Minkowski metric, which means that the manifold is, at each one of its points, locally smooth.
and taking determinants
but due to a property of diffeomorphisms, a volume element whose factors are components of an orthonormal basis (locally), when transformed to components , has the determinant of the Jacobian matrix J as conversion factor:
See also volume form.
-- Fropuff 18:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Question on Metric Equation
should perhaps be:
as per discussion
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3398120#post3398120 (especially post #36) JDoolin (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
First, in the section "Definition", g is defined as a 4 x 4 metric tensor, but in the section "Local coordinates and matrix representations" g is defined as a scalar valued bilinear form (?)
There is also, parenthetically, a third definition of g as a tensor field.
Finally, there is a definition of ds² as the line element and as the "metric", but the line element is ds, not ds².
I suggest separate, clear, correct and unambiguous definitions of the metric tensor, the metric, the tensor field, and the line element.
Then there should be a statement regarding the informal conflation of these by physicists who know what they are doing despite appearances to the contrary.
Perhaps there should also be an explanation of the relation of the element of proper time to the line element, i.e., dtau = ds/c.