14

My question has two parts, one concerning the state of the art of the subject, and the other the usefulness.

1. State of the art. Can someone provide references reflecting the state of the art in semi-Riemannian geometry with degenerate metric? I am aware of the research of Demir Kupeli, dealing with the case when the signature of the metric is constant. I am mostly interested in the cases when the signature is allowed to vary.

2. Usefulness. Is there a "market" for results extended from the nondegenerate semi-Riemannian geometry to the degenerate one? Would the community of mathematicians and physicists be interested in possible applications, for example to the singularities encountered in General Relativity?

Sorry if these questions seem odd, but I am interested to know whether is worth investing time and resources in doing research in this field. I would like to hear as many opinions as possible.

Update As a matter of fact, I already invested much time and resources, but as I told in an answer to a different question, I would like to make sure I am not reinventing the wheel.

There are also some results concerning cosmological models which start as Riemannian, then, on a hypersurface, the metric becomes Lorentzian.

  • This is called sub-Riemannian geometry. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Riemannian_manifold – Deane Yang Dec 01 '10 at 22:37
  • 3
    @Deane Yang: Actually, sub-Riemannian manifolds are (sort of) complementary to the singular (semi-)Riemannian manifolds, but they are not the same (See for example http://www.springerlink.com/content/k768420845277744/). For the sub-Riemannian manifolds, the metric is restricted at each point to a subspace of the tangent space; for the singular (semi-)Riemannian manifolds, the metric cancels on a subspace of the tangent space (the degenerate subspace). – Cristi Stoica Dec 02 '10 at 06:05
  • One day, no answer. Does this count as a negative answer to my second question? – Cristi Stoica Dec 02 '10 at 11:12
  • 3
    @Cristi: I have no real information to give you, but I do have a general comment that may be relevant to your second question. I think that most professional mathematicians would agree that attempting to generalize a classic subject by some unmotivated weakening of the definition of its basic structure is not likely to lead to fruitful mathematics. Good generalizations most often arise from making some minimal change necessary to treat a problem that comes up naturally and "just misses" fitting into an existing theory. So I guess I am saying you are "putting the cart before the horse". – Dick Palais Feb 06 '11 at 18:11
  • 2
    @Dick Palais: thank you, I think your are right in general. In this particular case, I am interested in the singularities in General Relativity, so I do have a motivation. But I would like to know of other applications as well. Especially in mathematics, because this problem is mostly mathematical, and it may be more accessible to a mathematician. I think that knowing more applications can always increase the motivation. – Cristi Stoica Feb 06 '11 at 21:16
  • @Cristi Why exactly is this needed to treat singularities in general relativity? The Hawking Penrose Singularity Theorems, covered by Penrose in "Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity"[http://tinyurl.com/4rcrnlm], have no need of semi-Riemannian geometry.

    Also, I'd guess such degenerate metrics world only be important in quantum general relativity, as at/near a singularity the quantum, not classical, theory world come into play...and that's another can of worms.

    – Kelly Davis Feb 09 '11 at 20:51
  • @Kelly Davis: The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems predict the occurrence of singularities, which are interpreted as proving the breakdown of the mathematics of General Relativity, because some quantities become infinite. Understanding the mathematics of degenerate metrics shows that, at least for a class of singularities, we can describe the desired geometric properties in terms of other fundamental invariants, which remain finite. Thus, I find interesting the degenerate metrics because they can allow us to construct a geometry which doesn't break down at singularities. – Cristi Stoica Feb 10 '11 at 10:58
  • 1
    @Cristi The singularity theorems prove that general relativity predicts on a globally hyperbolic space-time subject to certain energy conditions the space-time is singular. But, a singular space-time need not possess any infinite, metric-derived quantities, curvature polynomials and the like. In particular, a singular space-time need not have a degenerate metric. A singular space-time is simply an inextendible space-time on which there exist incomplete geodesics. So, saying that a singular space-time must have a degenerate metric or must have some quantity that's infinite is incorrect. – Kelly Davis Feb 10 '11 at 21:11
  • @Cristi Before any going further with this I'd suggest you at least read through chapter 9 of Wald and also, if you still want more, the Penrose book I referenced earlier. That will at least give you a better feel for how singular space-times are treated in general relativity. – Kelly Davis Feb 10 '11 at 21:12
  • @ Kelly: PH theorems predict a class of singularities: true. There are geodesically incomplete spaces for which the metric is not degenerate, and which don't have infinite quantities: also true. Are these singularities with nondegenerate metric those predicted by the PH theorems? I think this is the question. PH theorems don't predict all possible singularities, so we don't need to care about all possible singularities. Various forms of Penrose's Cosmic Censorship hypothesis conjectures precisely the fact that not all possible singularities can be obtained. – Cristi Stoica Feb 12 '11 at 08:41
  • @Cristi All PH theorems are of the form "For spacetime M if condition X is true, which follows if Einstein's equation is satisfied and condition Y is true, and condition Z is true, then ...". (See Theorems 9.5.1, 9.5.2, 9.5.3, and 9.5.4 of Wald.) Thus, they apply only if some condition X is true or if Einstein's equation and condition Y are satisfied. If only condition X is true and Einstein's equation is not satisfied, the results purely mathematical and need not be relevant to general relativity. If Einstein's equation is satisfied, the metric on M is by definition not degenerate. – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 11:20
  • @Cristi ...Thus, singular space-times with non-degenerate metrics are predicted by the PH theorems. (Note also that in all cases, 9.5.1, 9.5.2, 9.5.3, and 9.5.4, condition X also implies the metric on M is not degenerate. Thus, all singular space-times predicted by the PH theorems have non-degenerate metrics.) In light of this, I'd say degenerate metrics are not relevant to the PH predicted singular space-times of general relativity. – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 11:21
  • @Cristi As I originally stated, they my be relevant to quantum gravity. But, no one really knows. – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 11:22
  • @Kelly: If I understand well your argument, it saids that the Einstein's equation makes sense at the singular points predicted by The Penrose-Hawking theorems, therefore the metric should be nondegenerate. My understanding is that Einstein's equation makes sense only on the open regions obtained by removing the singularity points. Extending by continuity Einstein's tensor to the singular points makes it in general divergent at those points. It is somehow similar to the case of a point charge: the electric potential diverges as r->0 and the Maxwell's equations don't make sense for r=0. – Cristi Stoica Feb 12 '11 at 12:12
  • @Cristi Sorry for being unclear. The Einstein's equation is not defined and does not make sense for degenerate metrics, as you correctly mention. (Also, you should be careful with phrases such as "singular points predicted by The Penrose-Hawking theorems". Formally, this is incorrect, though morally its what we have in the back of our heads. The Penrose-Hawking theorems do not predict the existence of "singular points"; they predict the existence of incomplete geodesics.) – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 13:53
  • @Cristi My argument, more-or-less, says the Penrose-Hawking theorems prove the existence of singular space-times on which Einstein's equation holds. Thus, as the Einstein's equation holds, the metrics are non-degenerate on such singular space-times. (If you try to extend Einstein's equation to a manifold with a degenerate metric, then it's no longer general relativity, but some thing else.) – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 13:59
  • @Cristi I guess the moral of this story is: If you've a singular space-time $M$, which via the above discussion, does not have a degenerate metric, then you "compactify" it by adding, in some ill-defined manner, a set of points $S$ at which the metric is degenerate, then $M \cup S$ is a "singular space-time with singularity $S$". One might study how the metric degenerates at $S$, but this will likely not be of value. The classical theory likely breaks down in some "neighborhood" $U$ of $S$ and thus, any info about the metric degeneracies on $S$ one obtains from the metric on $U$ is invalid. – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 14:47
  • @Cristi A few notes about the last comment: First, the last comment is morally what is occurring and is non-normative in ISO speak. Second, all the words in quotes are ill-defined. Third, $U$ may be defined, more-or-less, by looking at the region in which the radius of curvature is less than Planck's length. – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 14:54
  • @Kelly: thank you for the clarification. You are right, I am interested in "something else" - an extended version of general relativity, based on extended versions of Einstein's equation and of the ADM equations, which make sense even at those points. In the question above, I mentioned my answer to another MO question - there I put the links to the drafts of my work of extending semi-Riemannian geometry to degenerate metrics, and extending GR beyond singularities. This MO question is intended to help me put my research in context. – Cristi Stoica Feb 12 '11 at 15:10
  • @Kelly: while I was writing, you wrote two more interesting comments. Indeed, one way is to embed the incomplete manifold in a larger one, having a degenerate metric at the additional points. This embedding is not unique, particularly because the metric is degenerate. For example, the singularity inside a Schwarzschild black hole is spacelike. In some coordinates (Schwarzschild, Eddington–Finkelstein) it appears to be of dimension one, while in others (Kruskal–Szekeres) it appears to be of dimension 3. I would vote for 3 dimensions. – Cristi Stoica Feb 12 '11 at 15:19
  • @Cristi Well, I wish you luck. But, you realize this "something else" will have to overthrow general relativity, the problem with degenerate metrics, and quantum mechanics, the problem with the classical theory not being valid in $U$. – Kelly Davis Feb 12 '11 at 15:49
  • @Kelly: Thank you for the wishes and the observations. I don't think GR should be overthrown. I just think that its present form will be generalized a bit, so that it remains the same if the metric is nondegenerate. Some use the Penrose-Hawking theorems to argue that GR predicts its own breakdown and should be replaced with something else. My hope is that GR is not to be replaced, only extended, by an appropriate choice of the fundamental invariants. – Cristi Stoica Feb 12 '11 at 20:46
  • ??http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19337/algebraic-semi-riemannian-geometry – Unknown Feb 13 '11 at 00:20
  • The standard formulation of GR in terms of the Einstein field equations can't deal with changes of signature. Changes of signature can sometimes be a symptom of a bad choice of coordinates, and can sometimes be eliminated by choosing different coordinates. The Ashtekar formulation of GR can describe a change of signature. Whether this has any physical relevance to reality is debatable. Some papers from the gr-qc section of arxiv may be helpful: 9706027, 0012047, 9606045. There are also some remarks on this in Rovelli, "Ashtekar formulation of general relativity ..." –  Oct 18 '12 at 20:17
  • @Ben Crowell: Thank you for the comment, I agree that there are difficulties in the standard formulation. I posted below an answer containing my own approach. Before starting my research, I considered Ashtekar's variables and the tetrad formalism (Einstein-Palatini). Ashtekar's triad and the Einstein-Palatini tetrad may be used with metrics having variable signature, or degenerate metrics. The problem is that the other variable is (based on) the Levi-Civita connection, which becomes singular and undefined. My approach avoids this. – Cristi Stoica Oct 20 '12 at 21:50

5 Answers5

7

There are almost two years since I asked this question. At that time I already had developed part of the formalism, but wanted to learn more about other approaches.

I would like to answer my own question, by presenting my own research which took place in the meantime.

I considered smooth metrics, which are allowed to be degenerate and change signature. The main problem was that the covariant derivative and the curvature need in their definition the inverse of the metric, which is not defined or singular. The first step was to define an invariant contraction between covariant indices. I did this in Tensor Operations on Degenerate Inner Product Spaces (http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5864)

This allowed me to find cases in which we can define covariant derivative for differential forms, and construct smooth Riemann tensor $R_{abcd}$. The tensor $R^a{}_{bcd}$ is equivalent with it only for non-degenerate metrics, otherwise is not defined or singular. I did this in On Singular Semi-Riemannian Manifolds (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0201). I gave some examples which showed that this kind of metrics actually exist. I also found a densitized version of Einstein's equation, which is equivalent with Einstein's for non-degenerate metrics, but also works at this kind of singularities.

To construct a new class of examples and applications to physics, I used warped products with warping function which may vanish: Warped Products of Singular Semi-Riemannian Manifolds (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3404). I also found the Cartan's Structural Equations for Degenerate Metric (http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.0646).

From the warped products introduced above, I could show that the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker model is of this type: Big Bang singularity in the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime (http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4508), Beyond the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Big Bang singularity (http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1819, Commun. Theor. Phys. 58(4) (2012), 613-616).

The black hole singularities apparently are not of this type, because the metric has components which become singular, so it is not smooth. But appropriate coordinate changes make their metric analytic, as shown in Schwarzschild Singularity is Semi-Regularizable (http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4837, Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2012) 127: 83), Analytic Reissner-Nordstrom Singularity (http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4332, Phys. Scr. 85 (2012) 055004), Kerr-Newman Solutions with Analytic Singularity and no Closed Timelike Curves (http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.7082). This allows finding globally hyperbolic spacetimes with singularities Spacetimes with Singularities (http://www.anstuocmath.ro/mathematics/pdf26/Art16.pdf).

I showed that there is also an alternative way to write an Einstein equation at singularities (http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2140). This allows finding a general class of Big Bang singularities, which may be anysotropic and inhomogeneous, and which satisfy the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis (http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3382) of Penrose. An interesting consequence is the existence of a dimensional reduction, which may reopen the possibility of quantizing gravity by perturbative methods: Quantum Gravity from Metric Dimensional Reduction at Singularities (http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2586). An overview of this research is given in my seminary held at JINR, Dubna: An Exploration of the Singularities in General Relativity (http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5303).

A more accessible introduction is given in the essay Did God Divide by Zero?.

3

See the paper:

  • MR2598628 Steinbauer, Roland, A note on distributional semi-Riemannian geometry, Novi Sad J. Math. 38 (2008), no. 3, 189–199. (journal pdf)

See also the book:

  • MR1883263 Grosser, Michael; Kunzinger, Michael; Oberguggenberger, Michael; Steinbauer, Roland, Geometric theory of generalized functions with applications to general relativity Mathematics and its Applications, 537. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001. xvi+505 pp. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9845-3

There singular semi-Riemannian metrics are studied in the sense of distributions. But there is the need to multiply distributions in order to compute curvature and check Einstein's equation. So this uses an extension of distributions where you can multiply, but loose some properties.

Edit: You find many papers in this directions by looking at the work of Roland Steinbauer more generally (arXiv).

David Roberts
  • 33,851
Peter Michor
  • 24,985
1

There are quite a few works of Marek Kossowski et al on metrics with variable signature, https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/search/publications.html?pg1=INDI&s1=225305 . For instance "Kriele, Marcus; Kossowski, Marek Pseudo-Riemannian metrics with signature type change. Geometry and topology of submanifolds, VII " and "Kossowski, Marek; Kriele, Marcus The volume blow-up and characteristic classes for transverse, type-changing, pseudo-Riemannian metrics. Geom. Dedicata 64 (1997), no. 1, 1–16."

Dima
  • 335
1

It might be difficult to define singular semi-Riemannian manifolds applied to general relativity and that might be the reason why in quantum field theory and string theory topological smooth manifolds seem to suffice. The idea might be that in cosmologcial terms every singularity gets smoothened no matter how bad it is whether caught in a big bang or what naught.

There are of course non-smooth manifolds with degenerate metrics such as in all kinds of black holes.

So, as far as general relativity is concerned it appears that the idea is both useful and state of the art alright.

1

Here are a lot of examples of different metrics. I don't know if they are what you are looking for but they might help?

http://panda.unm.edu/Courses/Finley/p570.html

user8248
  • 321