We illustrate the metric tensor as a mathematical book-keeping device which accounts for the variable change necessary in converting “ground-distance” to “hiking-distance” in a topographical map. Calculations are done in topographical maps to re-enforce the intuitive explanation given of intrinsic and extrinsic geometry.
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 07, 2023 - 21:37:13.
You happen upon a shape called a Helicoid (seen in Figure 3) which, on a first pass, looks like just a twisted version of a piece of paper. You find, however, that you are unable to construct this twisted shape from a single piece of pink tracing paper without creating wrinkles or tears. However, with a significant amount of time, patience, scissors, and glue, you are able to construct a reasonable approximation of this helicoid from many small pieces of pink paper. With this newly constructed helicoidal shape, you set up your shadow casting apparatus again. This time, as you rotate the resulting helicoid around its central axis in space, you notice that the spotlight illuminates only the portions of the surface that are accessible to the light.
This situation, in essence, reflects the Extrinsic Geometry of the surface, namely, features of the surface can be exposed by some external methods of space. That is, the shadow cast onto the surface exists only because the spotlight was first present in space to create the light which then interacted with the surface itself in space to create this shadow. Any questions we wish to ask about the surface (for example, those distance and angle questions in Figure 5) can be asked instead of the shadow cast onto this surface from the spotlight in space. These questions about the shadow on the surface can then be answered with the understanding that the tools and techniques of space are at our disposal (e.g. rulers, tape measures, and string to find lengths and protractors to measure angles).
Given your success constructing a helicoid out of tracing paper, you decide to repeat the construction with yellow, photosensitive paper. Repositioning the star above this new construction, you leave the photosensitive paper to develop an image while you go and get coffee. Upon returning some time later, you find the following image imprinted onto the helicoid as seen in Figure 6 which prompts some natural questions. Some time later, sufficiently tired from constructing and thinking about how to make distance and angle computations without spatial tools you fall asleep wondering about the meaning of Intrinsic Geometry…
(… and this is what you dream…)
a star \once remembered \easily forgotten
a supernova \ captured \ nuclear afterimage
yourself \ miniscule \ trapped in crepuscular corona
perception\ sun-blinded \ claustrophobic
fate\ restricted \ a struggle to know more
Upon waking you realize that a way to make sense of your dream is to imagine yourself being trapped as a photographic image onto a helical surface made of photosensitive paper, and that in this transference you retain no knowledge of your prior existence in three-dimensional space. While this seems rather claustrophobic, you at least have retained the ability to move within the surface using your two remaining degrees of freedom (known to a 3D spatial observer as the width and vertical directions of the helicoid, but known to you the photographic inhabitant as simply \(v\) (moving across or left/right in the surface) and \(u\) (moving forward/backward on the surface), respectively.
Intrinsic Geometry then are those features of the surface that can be discovered while being “photographically embedded” into the surface. Intrinsic geometry requires that knowledge of surface be discovered using intrinsic tools that are developed with no reference to or knowledge of the surfaces prior extrinsic existence in space. Intrinsic tools should be constructed from knowledge of the variables \(u\) and \(v\) and special functions thereof (for example, the metric tensor \(g_{\alpha \beta}\)).
It turns out that, as hinted at in Figure 7, despite a transference to the photographic paper, special knowledge of an intrinsic object called the metric tensor \(g_{\alpha\beta}\) can be obtained, which allows one to compute lengths and angles in this new, restricted (intrinsic) surface environment defined by the vectors \(\partial_{1}=\partial_{u}\) and \(\partial_{2}=\partial_{v}\).
Using the metric tensor of the Helicoid (as seen in Figure 7) to compute lengths and angles intrinsically in the surface is not yet that satisfying as we have not yet developed the intuition behind the concept of Metrics. To develop this intuition and to step, skip, and jump towards the concepts of intrinsic geometry and the metric tensor, consider the illustration of a race shown in Figure 8.
According to one definition of Metrics obtained from the internet:
Metrics (/metriks/)
(…a method of measuring something) Each race contestant (the intrinsic observers) had a different method for measuring the length of the race based on their chosen racing mode or metric (6steps or 4skips or 3jumps). In contrast, the race fans (the extrinsic observers) had their own metric in the form of the race markers on the outside of the track (12ft).
(…the results obtained from this) This form of the definition is interesting as it can help us see the race, not really as a race, but as a means of dividing up the track into smaller parts. Imagine every time one of the contestants foot touches the ground (after a Step, a Skip, or a Jump) that a line across the track is made visible for the fans. By the end of the race, we might then see something like shown in Figure 10 or that seen from a top view in Figure 11.
Imagine now that one race fan (extrinsic) decides that they want to be a fourth contestant in what they know to be the 12ft race. As a now contestant (intrinsic) they decide to mix and match the race modes (fixed metrics) from the previous contestants into their own varying metric as shown in Figure 12. To summarize the four race completion strategies we have:
Because the New Contestant was a Former Observer who had the extrinsic knowledge that 1step=2ft, 1skip=3ft, and 1jump=4f, it follows that the contestants as a group are able to compare their intrinsic metrics (steps, skips, jumps, variable) to the extrinsic metric (ft) to see that they have all actually traveled the same distance of 12ft:
\[\begin{equation*}3jumps \cdot \frac{4ft}{1jump}=3\cdot 4ft=12ft\end{equation*}\]
\[\begin{align*} & \left(2skips \cdot \frac{3ft}{1skip}\right) \\ &+\left(1step \cdot \frac{2ft}{1step}\right) \\ &+\left(1jump\cdot \frac{4ft}{1jump}\right)\\ &=6ft+2ft+4ft\\ &=12ft\end{align*}\]
The concept of a variable metric extends from the length of a racetrack to distances traveled on a curved surface. The surface can be viewed as a mountainous park as seen in Figure 13
In this next several sections we introduce and motivate the idea of the metric tensor \(g_{\alpha \beta}\) of a surface using the, perhaps, more familiar concept of the topographical map the surface.
To make a topographical map of a surface, consider drawing many planes of constant elevation. As seen in Figure 14, the intersection of these planes with the surface create the constant elevation or contour curves of the surface. Drawing many contour curves together on a single plot is the topographical map of the surface as seen for example in Figure 15
The section on the park you have chosen to go to has three possible trails. In an effort to be prepared for whichever trail you might use, you have brought a variety topographical maps of a varying degrees of detail of the different regions as seen in Figure 16 which are shown in the context of the park itself in Figure 17. Imagine the whole mountainous park to be the size of your topographical maps and imagine the trails shown by their trail marker colors (Red for the Peak Trail, Purple for the Mountain Loop Trail, and Blue for the Valley Loop Trail).
The computation of distances between points on the mountainous surface along different paths can be accomplished using the data contained in the corresponding topographical maps. Understanding the spacing of the constant elevation (or contour) curves of the surface is a key to the metric tensor \(g_{\alpha\beta}\) of the surface, and therefore the computation of distances between points along paths.
Walking the Peak Trail to the TipTop seen in Figure 19 presents a great opportunity to show how to incorrectly compute walking distance using the Pythagorean Theorem as illustrated in Figure 20. Recall the Pythagorean Theorem (for computing the length of the hypoteneuse, \(c\)) of a right triangle whose leg lengths are \(a\) and \(b\)
\[\begin{align*} c=\sqrt{a^{2}+b^{2}}. \end{align*}\]
A common problem solving strategy in mathematics is to reduce a complicated problem (like the exact distance measurement problem) into smaller, less complicated problems (like the problem of finding the length of a single line segment). The trade off in solving these less complicated problems is that there are usually many, many of these smaller problems to need to be “re-assembled” to find final answer to the complicated problem (like needing to add the lengths of many line segments together to get a total curve length).
This section illustrates the connection between the variable metric idea introduced in section A Variable Metric and Race Summary: with a variety of topographical map calculations. By dividing the trail into sequentially smaller segments on which we perform extrinsic calculations for elevation gains and hiking distances, we create a reasonable approximation of a variable metric on the Peak Trail which motivates a more detailed treatment of in section The Metric Tensor:.
In this section we transition from extrinsic to intrinsic calculations of distance by using the metric tensor as a scale factor which converts “along-the-ground-distance” to “along-the-trail-distance”. We see that as the number of trail segments increases, then intrinsic and extrinsic computations of distance converge to each other.
The metric tensor \(g_{\alpha\beta}\) of a surface written as \(z=f(x,y)\) is the matrix
\[\begin{align*} g_{\alpha\beta}=\begin{pmatrix} g_{11} & g_{12} \\ g_{21} & g_{22} \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} 1+f_{x}^{2} & f_{x}f_{y} \\ f_{x}f_{y} & 1+f_{y}^2 \end{pmatrix} \end{align*}\]
where \(f_{x}\) and \(f_{y}\) are the partial derivatives of the surface equation \(z=f(x,y)\) with respect to \(x\) and \(y\). In the case of our mountainous park, the \(z\)-values (or elevations) can be obtained by \((x,y)\) location in the park by the equation
\[\begin{align*} f(x,y)&=-10 \cos ^3(x) \sin ^3(y)+\cos (x) \sin (y) \cos ^2(y)\\ &+2 \sin (x) \sin (y) (\cos (x) \sin (y)+1)^2\\ &+3 \sin (x) \sin (y) \cos (y) \end{align*}\]
from which the the metric tensor \(g_{\alpha\beta}(x,y)\) follows at any point in the park \((x,y)\). This matrix is quite complicated due to the complicated nature of the terrain. However, the metric tensor along the Peak Trail given by the points \((x,y)=(0,y)\) can be reduced to simply to a function of \(y\) \[\begin{align*} g_{\alpha\beta}(y)=\begin{pmatrix} g_{11}(y) & g_{12}(y) \\ g_{12}(y) & g_{22}(y) \end{pmatrix}, \end{align*}\]
where
\[\begin{align*} g_{11}(y)&=\left(2 \sin (y) (\sin (y)+1)^2+3 \sin (y) \cos (y)\right)^2+1\\ g_{12}(y)&=\left(\cos ^3(y)-32 \sin ^2(y) \cos (y)\right)\\ &\cdot \left(2 \sin (y) (\sin (y)+1)^2+3 \sin (y) \cos (y)\right)\\ g_{22}(y)&= \left(\cos ^3(y)-32 \sin ^2(y) \cos (y)\right)^2+1. \end{align*}\]
The Figures 31 and 32 show that intrinsic computations of (hill) segment length can be obtained from ground distance \(\Delta y\) and (the square root of) the metric tensor \(\sqrt{g_{22}(y)}\) by a scale factor formula:
\[\begin{align*} \mbox{Hill Segment Length}=\Delta y \cdot \sqrt{g_{22}(y)}. \end{align*}\]
The Peak Trail, because of its constant southerly heading (with no east-west deviation), is an ideal example to use since only one component of the metric tensor is needed \(g_{22}\) for scaling. Intrinsically computing the walking distance on this specific trail nicely illustrates the metric tensors role as a mathematical book-keeping device accounting for the variable change necessary in converting “ground-distance \(\Delta y\)” to “hill-distance, \(\Delta y \cdot \sqrt{g_{22}(y)}\)”. The metric tensor stores intrinsically all the information necessary to ensure that extrinsic computations of distance match the intrinsic distance.
Figure 33 shows that as \(\Delta y\) decreases to \(0\) (and therefore the number of segments increases to \(\infty\)) the intrinsic and extrinsic segment lengths begin to converge. So too then do the trail distances converge (aka the totals of the segments lengths).
For those with some experience in Calculus who wish not to “sum-up” the many, many intrinsic or extrinsic segment lengths to get an approximation of total trail distance, you can always compute some integrals.
\[\begin{align*} f(x,y)&=-10 \cos ^3(x) \sin ^3(y)+\cos (x) \sin (y) \cos ^2(y)\\ &+2 \sin (x) \sin (y) (\cos (x) \sin (y)+1)^2\\ &+3 \sin (x) \sin (y) \cos (y). \end{align*}\]
The equation of the peak trail as a curve in 3D is then
\[\begin{align*} r(t)=r(0,t)=(0,-t,-\sin (t) \cos ^2(t)+10 \sin ^3(t)). \end{align*}\]
The speed of the curve (or length of the velocity vector) is
\[\begin{align*} |v(t)|&=|r'(t)\cdot r'(t)|=\sqrt{\left(-\cos ^3(t)+32 \sin ^2(t) \cos (t)\right)^2+1} \end{align*}\]
from which it follows that the arc-length element \(ds\) (or the distance traveled at speed \(|v(t)|\) for a short moment in time dt) is given by \(ds=|v(t)|dt\).
Integrating \(ds\) from \(t=0\) to \(t=1.5\) yields a total trail distance of \[\begin{align*} \int_{0}^{1.5}ds&=\int_{0}^{1.5}\sqrt{\left(-\cos ^3(t)+32 \sin ^2(t) \cos (t)\right)^2+1}\; dt=10.4083. \end{align*}\]