1
$\begingroup$

I am Math Undergrad student, reading this article. In that Author mentioned following

Consider the motion a charged particle of unit mass and unit charge in this magnetic field, which is described by Newton's law of motion $$ \nabla_{\dot{\gamma}} \dot{\gamma}=Y(\dot{\gamma}) $$ where $\nabla$ is the Levy-Civita connection of $g$ and $Y: T M \rightarrow T M$ is the Lorentz force associated with $\Omega$, i.e., the bundle map uniquely determined by $$ \Omega_{x}(\xi, \eta)=\left\langle Y_{x}(\xi), \eta\right\rangle_{g} $$ for all $x \in M$ and $\xi, \eta \in T_{x} M .$

I do not understand how Newton first law implies $$ \nabla_{\dot{\gamma}} \dot{\gamma}=Y(\dot{\gamma}) $$

Also I do not understand Lorentz force $Y$ Associated with $\Omega$.

I do not any background on Physics. So if anyone explained to me above how it follows or some reference that would be really nice.

Thank you so much.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Can you provide a link to the article? Also for context, are you familiar with the "vanilla" form of Newton's second law $\vec{F}=m\vec{a}$ and the Lorentz force for a magnetic field $\vec{F} = q \vec{v} \times \vec{B}$, where $\vec{F}$ is force, $m$ mass, $\vec{a}$ acceleration, $q$ charge, $\vec{v}$ velocity, and $\vec{B}$ magnetic field? Newton's first law states that an object that is not acted on by an external force moves at a constant velocity. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Commented Nov 18, 2021 at 6:30

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

The expression $$\nabla_{\dot \gamma}\dot \gamma = Y(\dot \gamma) \tag{$\star$}\label{$\star$}$$ is Newton's second law. Newton's first law - which states that objects which are not under the influence of external forces follow geodesics - could be understood as a limiting case of $\eqref{$\star$}$ in which $Y=0$.

As far as the relationship between $\Omega$ and $Y$, we have that

$$\Omega(\xi,\eta) = \langle Y(\xi),\eta\rangle_g$$ $$\implies \Omega_{ij} \xi^i \eta^j = g_{\alpha j} Y^\alpha_{\ \ i}\xi^i \eta^j \iff Y^\alpha_{\ \ \ i} = g^{\alpha j} \Omega_{ij}$$ So the right hand-side says "plug the vector $\dot \gamma$ into the first slot of $\Omega$ to get a covector, then raise the index with $g$ to get a vector."

In three dimensions, $\Omega$ is related to the standard magnetic field $B$ (a pseudo-vector field) via $\Omega_{ij} = -\epsilon_{ijk} B^k$, and so we could also write

$$Y^\alpha_{\ \ \ i} = -\epsilon_{ijk} g^{\alpha j} B^k\implies [Y(\dot \gamma)]^\alpha = -g^{\alpha j}\epsilon_{jki} B^k \dot\gamma^i \equiv (\dot \gamma \times \vec B)^\alpha$$ where $\times$ denotes the ordinary vector cross-product; this therefore reproduces the familiar (to physicists) magnetic force law $$\vec F = q(\vec v \times \vec B)$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Newton's first law is actually not a special/limiting case of the second law, but rather a statement about the existence of the inertial reference frames, where the other Newton's laws apply. It is the newtonian equivalent of the relativity postulates. Mathematical statements (for zero acceleration) look identical, but physical statements are different. $\endgroup$
    – Roger V.
    Commented Nov 19, 2021 at 9:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RogerVadim I actually share that perspective, usually. However, when things have been abstracted this far and we are framing mechanics in terms of geodesic motion on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, I am not sure how to phrase this since aren’t even talking about charts or frames. Perhaps the existence of normal coordinates at each point - but then again, at this level that is already a mathematical consequence of our use of the Levi-Civita connection. My cagey use of “could be understood as” reflects this point, but I’m open to suggestions. $\endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Commented Nov 19, 2021 at 12:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.