Re: Connection not a tensor..
- From: Robert Low <mtx014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:10:41 +0000 (UTC)
mike.james wrote:
> I've been thinking about what it means that the connection coefficients
> don't transform like a tensor. Given that we start off with the idea
> that thing that have a co-ordinate independent reality are tensors i.e.
> transform like tensors does the fact that the connection isn't a tensor
> mean that it isn't a "physical thing" or does it mean that other
> transformation laws define physical things.
> Given that a connection does define things that are independent of
> co-ordinates such as curvature, parallel transport etc. presumably the
> connection is as real as a tensor and hence the transformation law that
> it obeys is "as good as" the tensor transformation law.
> Or is there a bigger picture in which the connection is part of a tensor?
You can think of the connection as providing a kind of correction
term: you add this to a coordinate derivative (which also isn't
a tensor) and the result is then a tensor---i.e. a nice geometric
notion of derivative.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Connection not a tensor..
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Connection not a tensor..
- References:
- Connection not a tensor..
- From: mike.james
- Connection not a tensor..
- Prev by Date: R-\xi gauge with complex generators
- Next by Date: Re: Quantum communication might be possible?
- Previous by thread: Connection not a tensor..
- Next by thread: Re: Connection not a tensor..
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|