2

I was trying as exercise to derive the Laplacian in spherical coordinates using riemannian geometry tools.

Definition If $\mathcal{M}$ is a smooth manifold of dimension $n$ and $\left\{E_1,\ldots,E_n \right\}$ is an orthonormal frame then we define for $f : \mathcal{M} \to \mathbb{R}$ $$ \text{grad} f = \sum_{i=1}^n E_i(f)E_i $$ and $$ \Delta f = \sum_{i=1}^n E_i(E_i(f)). $$

Let $$ \mathbb{S}^2(r) = \left\{ (x,y,z) \in \mathbb{R}^3 : \left\{ \begin{array}{l} x = r\sin \phi \cos \theta \\ y = r\sin \phi \sin \theta \\ z = r\cos\phi \end{array} \right. \;\;,0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi, 0 \leq \phi \leq \pi \right\} $$

So there's single chart for the sphere, name this $\varphi$ . If I did the calculation right I have

$$ \varphi_{*,(\theta,\phi)} = \begin{pmatrix} -r\sin\phi \sin\theta & r\cos\phi \cos\theta \\ r\sin\phi \cos\theta & r\cos\phi \sin\theta \\ 0 & -r\sin\phi \end{pmatrix} $$

To define an o.n. reference frame I did the following calculations

$$ \begin{array}{l} \left\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \right\rangle_{\mathbb{S}^2(r),(\theta,\phi)} = \left\langle \varphi_{*,(\theta,\phi)}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \varphi_{*,(\theta,\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \right\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^3,\varphi(\theta,\phi)} = 0\\ \left\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \right\rangle_{\mathbb{S}^2(r),(\theta,\phi)} = \left\langle \varphi_{*,(\theta,\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta},\varphi_{*,(\theta,\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \right\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^3,\varphi(\theta,\phi)} = r^2 \sin \phi \\ \left\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \right\rangle_{\mathbb{S}^2(r),(\theta,\phi)} = \left\langle \varphi_{*,(\theta,\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}, \varphi_{*,(\theta,\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \right\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^3,\varphi(\theta,\phi)} = r^2 \end{array} $$

We have then

$$ T_{(\theta,\phi)}\mathbb{S}^2(r) = \text{span} \left\{ \frac{1}{r\sin\phi} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \right\} $$ Which is an orthonormal frame for every $(\theta,\phi)$. This gives me the following expression of the laplacian $$ \Delta_{\mathbb{S}^2(r)}f = \left( \frac{1}{r^2 \sin^2\phi} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta^2} + \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi^2} \right)f $$

According to few references I've seen around the expression is wrong. I did the calculation few times but I cannot spot the error.

Can you maybe tell me what I am doing wrong? I am assuming the metric on $\mathbb{S}^2(r)$ is the one induced by $\mathbb{R}^3$.

user8469759
  • 5,285
  • 1
    This is not the correct definition of $\Delta f$. It can't be, because it doesn't give the same result if you change to a different orthonormal frame with a nonconstant transition matrix. – Jack Lee Jul 20 '22 at 19:08

1 Answers1

2

Your definition for $\text{grad}(f)$ is fine, however, the expression you gave for $\Delta f$ only works if you fix a point $p\in M$ and consider a 'geodesic frame at $p$', i.e an orthonormal frame $\{E_1,\dots, E_n\}$ defined in an open neighborhood of $p$ such that for all $i,j\in\{1,\dots, n\}$, $(\nabla_{E_i}E_j)(p)=0$. The orthonormal frame you gave doesn't satisfy the 'geodesic' condition, which is why you're not getting the right result.

The 'correct' definition for the Laplacian is as the divergence of the gradient of $f$, where the divergence of a vector field $X$ is defined as $\text{div}(X)(p):=\text{trace}\left(v_p\mapsto\nabla_{v_p}X\right)$, the trace of a linear mapping $T_pM\to T_pM$. Let us now derive the formula the divergence in terms of a geodesic frame at $p$. Say $X=\sum_{j=1}^nX^jE_j$, then \begin{align} (\text{div }X)(p)&=\text{trace}(v_p\mapsto\nabla_{v_p}X)\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^n\left\langle \nabla_{E_i(p)}X, E_i(p)\right\rangle\\ &=\sum_{i,j=1}^n \left\langle \nabla_{E_i(p)}(X^jE_j), E_i(p)\right\rangle\\ &=\sum_{i,j=1}^n \left\langle (E_i(X^j))(p)\cdot E_j(p)+ X^j(p)\nabla_{E_i(p)}E_j, E_i(p)\right\rangle\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^n(E_i(X^i))(p), \end{align} where we first used the product rule on $\nabla_{E_i(p)}(X^jE_j)$, and then used that we have an orthonormal and geodesic frame at $p$. This is the general formula for the divergence of any vector field. If you specialize to $X=\text{grad}(f)$, then $X^i=E_i(f)$, so you recover your stated formula for the Laplacian.

Now, since you're not actually using a geodesic frame in your computation, you won't get the right answer. An alternative approach to computing the Laplacian is to use the Voss-Weyl formula for the divergence of any vector field applied to the gradient: \begin{align} \Delta f&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\left(\sqrt{|g|}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x^{\nu}}\right). \end{align} You already worked out the metric components $g_{\mu\nu}$ in your post, so carrying out this summation should be trivial.

peek-a-boo
  • 55,725
  • 2
  • 45
  • 89
  • Could you maybe either show me the computations to be done. I think I am a bit confused by the geodesic frame. – user8469759 Jul 21 '22 at 09:48
  • @user8469759 the first half of my answer shows that if you use a geodesic frame, then the Laplacian at that point is equal to the formula you wrote in your post. One can show such geodesic frames always exist. So the first half of my answer is just pointing out how to fix your erroneous statement. Now, if you want to compute the Laplacian, then you simply use the coordinate formula I wrote down(so forget about geodesic frames). This is the simplest approach because you already computed the metric components explicitly in your post. Now just carry out the double summation. – peek-a-boo Jul 21 '22 at 09:51
  • The double summation is easy in this case because you're dealing with a 2-dimensional manifold with diagonal metric components, so there's only 2 non-zero terms. Anyway the link in my answer goes through the computation of the Laplacian for a different metric in higher dimensions. So take a look at that for guidance (though your problem is much simpler computationally). – peek-a-boo Jul 21 '22 at 09:53
  • I think as a reference to understand your answer I am taking as a reference an exercise from DoCarmo Riemannian Geometry book. I think what I don't understand is why my frame isn't a geodesic one. I thought I proved the frame I've chosen was orthonrmal but sounds like I need to add the connection calculation to check. This would probably prove my frame isn't a geodesic one, is that correct? – user8469759 Jul 21 '22 at 10:06
  • @user8469759 right, your frame is orthonormal, but not geodesic hence your calculations are wrong. The fact that you're not getting the correct Laplacian already tells you your frame is not geodesic (computing covariant derivatives directly by hand is a little annoying which is why I'm mentioning this 'roundabout' argument). – peek-a-boo Jul 21 '22 at 10:11
  • Hi , sorry to go back on this. I can ask a separate question in case. But is there a procedure to transform a given smooth frame into a geodesic one? Like the Gram-Schmidt procedure? – user8469759 Jul 22 '22 at 08:57
  • @user8469759 not that I'm aware of. But, the way we prove the existence of a geodesic frame is to first take an orthonormal basis ${e_1,\dots, e_n}$ of $T_pM$, and parallel-transport each of these vectors to neighboring points $q$ near $p$, by transporting along the unique geodesic from $p$ to $q$ (this exists due to the exponential map being a local diffeomorphism from $0\in T_pM$ to a neighborhood of $p\in M$). This gives you a collection of vector fields ${E_1,\dots, E_n}$ defined near $p$. – peek-a-boo Jul 22 '22 at 09:25
  • They're smooth because parallel transport of a vector is the unique solution to a system of parameter-dependent ODEs, and ODE tells us we have unique smooth solutions. They're orthonormal because parallel-transport is an isometry between tangent spaces. Proving geodesicness at $p$ is an exercise :) So in this sense, we start from an orthonormal basis at one point and construct a geodesic frame. But I'm not sure (and doubt it's possible) to take a given orthonormal local frame, and make that geodesic at a point in a Grahm-Schmidt like way. – peek-a-boo Jul 22 '22 at 09:28
  • Very last question. For the case I've given what would be a geodesic frame? If there's a "off-the-shelf" answer? – user8469759 Jul 22 '22 at 09:46