3 ms·
> In Riemannian manifolds, we take ℝ^n as the building block We take ℝ^n as the building block for any smooth manifold, not just Riemannian ones. Note that the
by codethief 6y ago
> In Riemannian manifolds, we take ℝ^n as the building block
We take ℝ^n as the building block for any smooth manifold, not just Riemannian ones. Note that there is a difference between ℝ^n and Euclidean space. ℝ^n is a smooth manifold without a metric structure, so it is not a Riemannian manifold automatically. In contrast, Euclidean space is ℝ^n with a metric structure, namely the one given by the standard Euclidean metric δ. So Euclidean space is a Riemannian manifold and it is often denoted by the tuple (ℝ^n, δ).
Finally, if we denote by η the (n-1, 1) Minkowski metric on ℝ^n, then (ℝ^n, η) is just Minkowski space (in particular, it is a Lorentzian / pseudo-Riemannian manifold).
> Just as flatness in the Riemannian case means "globally like ℝ^n"
This is not correct. There are many flat Riemannian manifolds that are not globally isometric (or even diffeomorphic) to Euclidean space (ℝ^n, δ). Take e.g. the torus T^n = S¹ × … × S¹ of any dimension.
> On the other hand, one can take Minkowski space as a given, and then build spaces where we have space that is locally hyperbolic
Again, I think you're confusing the terms "Lorentzian" and "hyperbolic" here. As I said (and you then yourself said), a hyperbolic manifold is a Riemannian manifold, not a Lorentzian one. A Lorentzian manifold is locally Lorentzian, not locally hyperbolic. You might want to read pa7x1's excellent explanation again.
Also note that the quotes you gave from Wikipedia don't contradict what I (or pa7x1) said in the slightest.
> As for _why_ we do this, my understanding is that we want to generalize SR(special relativity). For SR, we use a single space of signature (3,1). For GR, we want to 'put together' many such spaces, which are then distorted by gravity (this is curvature of space-time). Hence, we take the local space to be (3, 1), and the global space connects versions of (3, 1).
This is certainly one of way of thinking about it, yes: Locally, we see Minkowski space but globally the geometry (and topology) might be more complicated and this is what GR allows us to implement through a general Lorentzian manifold.
- bollu 6y agoThank you, It does appear I am hopefully confused between hyperbolic and Lorentzian :) Thanks for patiently showing me where I am going wrong. For my selfish benefit, could you please collect the definitions of (i) Hyperbolic space (ii) Minkowski space (iii) Lorentzian manifold (iv) Pseudo Riemannian manifold?
- codethief 6y agoI'm glad I could help! > could you please collect the definitions of (i) Hyperbolic space (ii) Minkowski space (iii) Lorentzian manifold (iv) Pseudo Riemannian manifold? Sure: A Riemannian manifold is a smooth manifold M together with a positive-definite metric g on M. A hyperbolic manifold is a Riemannian manifold M of constant negative sectional curvature. It is often required in addition that M be a complete manifold. A pseudo-Riemannian manifold is a smooth manifold M together with a non-degenerate metric g on M (of arbitrary signature). A Lorentzian manifold of dimension n is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (of dimension n) whose metric has signature (1, n-1) or, equivalently, (n-1, 1). (n+1)-dimensional Minkowski space is the Lorentzian manifold (ℝ^(n+1), η), where η = - (dx⁰)² + (dx¹)² + … + (dx^n)² with respect to the standard coordinates (x⁰, x¹, …, x^n) on ℝ^(n+1).
- bollu 6y agoAnd what is the precise relationship between hyperbolic space and Minkowski space? am I right in understanding that one can _embed_ a model of hyperbolic space (the hyperboloid moidel, obeying the equation `-x0^2 + x1^2 + ... xn^2 = 0` as a subspace of the Minkowski space? But Minkowski space is far larger than hyperbolic space?
- codethief 6y agopa7x1 already answered that question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549361