Handout CM-17-01

Newtonian space-time

The theatre of Newtonian mechanics is space-time: the four-dimensional collection of all events.
an event is a point in space of zero dimension and no temporal duration. Exploding bombs are often
used to represent an event. Space-time is the direct product of one-dimensional time and three-
dimensional space.
Space is an affine space A3 . This is the mathematical statement that there is no preferred
origin, no zero vector, necessary for a vector space like R3 . The points of A3 are displacements, no
sum, only differences. Time is a one dimensional affine space A1 , there is no preferred origin of time,
only time differences have meaning. From a practical point of view this means that we get to decide
where the origin of space and time is, since it is arbitrary. This may seem obvious now, but it was
not, say before Copernicus.
Euclidean space E3 is an affine space with the addition of a structure: the distance function
p
d(x, y) = kx yk = (x y, x y)

or with an infinitesimal distance element, in index notation,

ds2 = ij dxi dxj

where ij is the Kronecker metric.

Newton is short and to the point: Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to
anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Absolute, true and mathematical time, of
itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external. (Isaac Newton,
Scholium in the Principia)
Hertz, two centuries later in his Principles, emphasizes that time is an independent variable and
space is Euclidean: The time of the first book is the time of our internal intuition. It is therefore
a quantity such that the variations of the other quantities under consideration may be regarded as
dependent upon its variation; whereas in itself it is always an independent variable. The space of
the first book is space as we conceive it. It is therefore the space of Euclids geometry, with all the
properties which this geometry ascribes to it. By first book it is meant the first part of the Principles.
It is understandable, but somewhat amusing, that the space-time of Newtonian mechanics is
always discussed when introducing Special Relativity, but rarely if at all when introducing Newtonian
mechanics itself. Newton himself, in his synthesis of the theory, was incredibly clear and lucid about
the set up.

1
 Vectors

On the very day thirty-five years ago when my History of Vector Analysis was pub-
lished, a good friend with the very best intentions helped me put the book in perspective
by innocently asking: Who was Vector? (M.J. Crowe)

A vector V is an element of a linear vector space. Here we focus on the real vector space,
R3 . As an example, it is sufficient to illustrate the general case of a linear vector space with a finite
number of dimensions and an inner product, and it is clearly what is needed for classical mechanics.
The generalization to n dimensions is obvious .
A matter of notation: a vector will be denoted in boldface V, or by V i with an index upstairs
(i, j, = 1, 2, 3), or simply by the unadorned abstract latin letter V . The index is sometimes
called a suffix.
Without entering into the details of the full mathematical definition of a linear vector space,
one thing is worth emphasizing: it contains the zero vector 0, so that there is a vector V such that
V + (V) = V V = 0. Note that 0 6= 0, one is a vector the other a scalar. A linear vector space
without the zero, R3 /0 is called an affine space A3 . In an affine space, only differences of vectors are
defined. The theater of classical mechanics, space, is an affine space because there is no preferred
origin .
The scalar (inner) product on R3 is defined by the Kronecker delta, ij = diag (+1, +1, +1),
so that
V W = ij V i W j
and this defines the distance function between points:
p
|x y| = (x y) (x y)

Euclidean space E3 is the affine space A3 with the additional structure of the inner product
given by the metric ij , that we write as E3 = {R3 , ij }. This is the space of Newtonian mechanics.
Unfortunately, the modulus or magnitude of a vector is also denoted by a latin letter

V = |V| = V V

This is a physics habit, in mathematics one finds |V | or kV k.

Obvious is the most dangerous word in mathematics. (E.T. Bell)

This point is mentioned on p. 4 of the great monograph by V.I. Arnold Mathematical Methods of Classical
Mechanics (Springer-Verlag, 1989), and has scared away legions of students from it (including myself), an unfortunate
fact.

We use the summation convention: I have made a great discovery in mathematics; I have suppressed the
summation sign every time that the summation must be made over an index that occurs twice . . . (Albert Einstein,
remark made to a friend.) Indices summed over are called dummy indices, indices that are not are free indices,
no judgement is implied.

2
 Basis. Any vector V can always be expressed w.r.t. a basis {ei } as

V = V i ei

The basis is required to be formed by the number of vectors equal to the dimension of the vector
space, in this case 3, and that the vectors be independent, i.e. that they are not parallel to each
other. In fact, this is the mathematical definition of dimension. The three V i are the components of
the vector V w.r.t. the basis {ei }. A vector has an index upstairs.
It is often convenient to choose an orthonormal basis {ei } that satisfies

ei ej = ij

Important: this choice is useful but not mandatory. The usefulness is that unit vectors are dimen-
sionless so that in the expansion
V = V i ei
both V and its components V i w.r.t. the orthonormal basis have automatically the same physical
dimension. The hat does not always appear explicitly.
The hat on a vector is pure physics fashion, very rarely if at all found in mathematics. It is
convenient at times, a hindrance at other times. Any vector can be made unit with
V
V =
VV
One hindrance is that unit vectors do not transform nicely under change of coordinates. Problems
can and are likely to arise when it is not made clear that the components of an equation are w.r.t.
to an orthonormal basis.
Given an arbitrary basis ei ,, non necessarily orthonormal, it is simple to construct an orthonormal
one fi . One way to do it is the Gram-Schmidt method. Start with one by normalizing it:
e1
f1 =
e1 e1

Next pick a second and let

f2 = e2 + a21 f1
and require that it is orthogonal to f1

f2 f1 = 0 a21 = e2 f1

so
f2 = e2 (e2 f1 )f1
Now normalize to obtain
f2
f2 =
f2 f2

3
and so on. This basic idea applies to all vector spaces, even infinite dimensional ones. In fact, it is
highly unlikely that you will ever use it explicitly, but implicitly yes.
A useful identity is given by the completeness relation :
X
V= (V ei ) ei
i

that can be found also in the fancier version

X
V = I V with I = ei ei
i

The important word that should be emphasized in linear vector space is linear. For the sake
of brevity, it is often omitted, but this unfortunate.This is especially true in mechanics. In physics,
linear is often given the status of a principle: the superposition principle, that means it is ok to add.

1-forms (co-vectors)

We are considering the real vector space, R3 . A 1-form or co-vector is a linear function
: R3 R. Using indices, this is the same as stating that i V i is a number. Note that the index
is downstairs. It is a machine with a vector as input and a number as output.
Linearity means
i (aV i + bW i ) = ai V i + bi W i
where a, b are numbers, or scalars.
A matter of notation: a 1-form will be denoted in boldface , or by i with an index downstairs,
or simply by a greek letter .
The set of 1-forms form themselves a 3-dimensional real vector space with the addition rule

(i + i )V i = i V i + i V i

This vector space is three-dimensional and it is called the dual vector space and is denoted by an
asterisk (R3 ) . Note that the dual of the dual brings us back: ((R3 ) ) = R3 , nothing new.
Raising and lowering. In R3 , the Kronecker ij , the metric, gives us an isomorphism, meaning
the same thing, between R3 and (R3 ) , by lowering the index Vi = ij V j or by raising the index with
the inverse Kronecker delta ij so i = ij j . The inverse is defined by ik kj = i j .
Basis. Just like a vector, a 1-form can always be expressed w.r.t. a basis { i } as

= i i

Used all the time in quantum mechanics, albeit in a different guise.

4
The three i are the components of the 1-form w.r.t. the basis { i }. A 1-form has an index
downstairs.
Note that we have the relationship between a basis for R3 and a basis for (R3 )

(ei , j ) = ij

The parenthesis here (, ) denotes a pairing between a vector space and its dual. In R3 the pairing is
done by the inner product, so (ei , j ) = ei j = ij . In general, unless there is an inner product
around, a vector space and its dual lead independent lives, but there is a pairing. A sloppy but perhaps
useful way to state this is that a vector has an index upstairs and a 1-form has an index downstairs:
no need for a metric to contract them.
To address the potential criticism of the reader that forms are a mathematical sophistication
not needed for a true physicist, even if this consideration is outside the scope of these notes, let us
point out that in quantum mechanics, a ket | > is a vector, and a bra < | is a 1-form, and their
inner product is < | >. For a real finite-dimensional space this would translate to i i .
For our purposes, let us note that:
Linear momentum p is really a 1-form. It should be written pi . The vector is obtained by raising
the index: pi = ij pj . This simple fact is the basis of the usefulness of Hamiltonian mechanics.
The force F is really a 1-form. It should be written Fi . The vector is is obtained by raising the
index: F i = ij Fj . This simple fact underlines the concept of work.
In terms of the linear momentum Newtons second law is

pi = Fi

For example, the textbook P. Dennery and Krzywicki Mathematics for Physicists (Dover 1996, but really 1967)
uses the Dirac bra-ket notation to introduce linear vector spaces, something perfectly legal but unbecoming in notes
for classical mechanics.

5
 Levi-Civita symbol in 3d. (3-form)

An important geometrical object in 3 dimensions is the totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol

ijk defined as
+1 if ijk is an even permutation of (1, 2, 3)
ijk = 1 if ijk is an odd permutation of (1, 2, 3)
0 if two or three indices are equal

where it is important to emphasize that we set

123 = +1

Using liberally ij and ij to raise and lower indices we have the identities

ijk lmn = + i l j m k n + j l k m i n + k l i m j n
j l imk n il k mj n k l j min
ijm klm = i k j l i l j k
ikl jkl = 2 i j
ijk ijk = 3! = 6

ijk is a 3-form. In R3 any 3-form ijk = [ijk] is proportional to ijk , i.e. ijk = aijk ,
with a arbitrary. In 3 dimensions, the space of 3-forms is one dimensional. Square brackets indicate
antisymmetrization in all the three indices. Since we are in R3 there is no 4-form: [ijkl] = 0 because
one value has to appear at least twice. This confers ijk the official title of top form. There is a
single top form in any number of dimensions for the same reason.
In n dimensions, a 1-form i has n components, a 2-form ij = ji has n(n 1)/2 compo-
nents. In three dimensions (only!) n = n(n 1)/2. It follows that in 3 dimensions we can use the 
to turn a 2-form into a 1-form, without loss of generality:

i = i jk jk

and conversely, using the identity above,

1
ij = ij k k
2

Given two 1-forms i , i their exterior product produces the 2-form

ij = 2[i j]

This is valid in any dimension. In three dimensions we have ijk available and we use it do introduce
the cross product, a machine with two vectors as input and a vector as output

Z i = i jk V j U k

6
Just note the position of the indices and remember the geometrical meaning. Please forget the
polar-axial vector, vector-pseudovector terminology; just count the number of epsilons.
The cross product is better known, in the Gibbs-Heaviside tradition as

Z=VU

but also, e.g. in Arnold, as

Z = [V, U]

The multiple cross product identities with respect to inner products and stuff you may have
memorised can and should be thrown away to make room in your brains hard drive for something
more useful and less confusing, like a nice poem. Just use the -identities above. They have a logic.
Difficult to make a mistake. A simple example is V V = 0 that becomes ijk V j V k = 0 which
makes sense immediately. Another example is the triple cross product

V(W Z) = W(V Z) Z(V W)

that becomes

i jk V j k mn W m Z n = V j W m Z n ( i m jn i n jm ) = W i V j Zj Z i V j Wj

Note: no need for parenthesis!

For practice, you may want to prove the Helmholtz theorem to yourself:

V = (V e)e + e (V e)

An important point to keep in mind is that by setting 123 = +1, we have chosen an orientation
(out of two possible, the other would be 123 = 1.). The orientation is kept fixed so we can proceed
without worrying about it. This means choosing once for all the right hand rule. It also means that
if the number of s is even the orientation does not matter, if it is odd it does.
Consider a 3 3 matrix Ai j . Its determinant is defined by

1
det A = ijk Ai 1 Aj 2 Ak 3 = ijk lmn Ai l Aj m An n
3!

For some geometry:

The determinant of a matrix is an (oriented) volume of the parallelepiped whose

edges are its columns. If the students are told this secret (which is carefully hidden in
the purified algebraic education), then the whole theory of determinants becomes a clear
chapter of the theory of polylinear forms. If determinants are defined otherwise, then any
sensible person will forever hate all the determinants, Jacobians and the implicit function
theorem. (V.I. Arnold)

7
 The epsilons and their identities provide one way to prove the Cayley-Hamilton theoremk for
any 3 3 matrix A:
1
A3 (trA)A2 + (trA)2 (trA2 ) A (detA) I = 0

2
where trA = Ai i and trA2 = Ai k Ak i . In its general form, the theorem states that a matrix satisfies
a matrix equation identical to its characteristic equation.
For a 2 2 matrix M , it takes the form

M 2 (trM )M + (detM )I = 0

k
It should be called Frobenius theorem: The theorem was first proved in 1853 in terms of inverses of linear
functions of quaternions, a non-commutative ring, by Hamilton. Cayley in 1858 stated it for 3 3 and smaller
matrices, but only published a proof for the 2 2 case.The general case was first proved by Frobenius in 1878.
(Wikipedia)

8
 Curves in R3 .
Since we are interested in the paths of particles, it is a good idea to have some familiarity with
the basics of the geometry of curves. An additional bonus is that a basic knowledge of the geometry
of curves is essential to make sense of line integrals, like work.
A curve in space is a map from R to R3 . In other words, we represent a curve in parametric
form as
x = X() ,
where
x is a point in space on the curve from some arbitrary origin,
is an arbitrary parameter along the curve
X denotes the map.
For a particle path, we can consider as time t, and X(t) is the path itself. (What we draw
on paper is called by mathematicians the image of the path.)
An alternative is to use an implicit representation, like f (x, y, z) = const.. For example, a planar
circle is written as x2 + y 2 = R2 . The parametric representation is more fruitful mathematically.
In parametric form, a straight line is given by

x = a + b (a and b are constant vectors)

A planar circle of radius R is

x = R cos , y = R sin ,
here the angle is the parameter. At the risk of giving away the ending, an ellipse is

x = a cos y = b sin

A planar hyperbola is
x = a cosh , y = b sinh
A circular helix of radius R and pitch B is

x = R cos , y = R sin , z = B

The tangent vector to the curve is simply its derivative with respect to the parameter

dX()
v() = .
d
We will assume that the tangent vector is everywhere different from zero, the curve is smooth, no
zigzags for now. By the way, you will find the term integral curve of a vector. It is simply the other
way around: given a vector V(), there is always, under reasonable assumptions, a curve to which it
is tangent, that is vector curve, whereas here curve vector.

9
 If we consider a particle path, the velocity is the tangent vector to the path
dX(t)
v(t) =
dt

The length along the curve, s, is defined infinitesimally by

ds2 = dx dx ,
so that

r
dX dX
ds = dx dx = d = v v d .
d d
Note that this definition is clearly independent of the parameter .
In order to find the length explicitly, we need to integrate this expression, and we have the
arc-length: Z p
s() = v(0 ) v(0 ) d0 .
0
Note that the integral is independent of our arbitrary choice of the variable of integration , as it
should. In nuce this integral contains the main concepts of integral calculus. For future use we define
the one-dimensional metric along the curve as the one by one matrix.(The curve is one dimensional
and, at the risk of appearing silly, we are preparing the ground for surfaces.)
g() = v() v() ,
and we rewrite the integral as Z p
s() = g(0 ) d0 .
0
where under the square root we have the determinant of the metric defined above. This ends the
description of the intrinsic geometry of the curve.
By intrinsic it is meant the geometry as seen by the proverbial ant that walks along the curve
and is not aware of the fact that the curve lives in space. The curve has no intrinsic curvature: just
by walking on it the ant cannot tell if the curve is curved or not. This is often summarised by the
somewhat demeaning statement that the intrinsic geometry of a curve is trivial. How the curve is
contained in space, how the curve bends, is described by its extrinsic geometry.
It is special to curves, as opposed to surfaces for example, that there is a preferred parametri-
sation, in the sense that it is very convenient. Amongst all possible parameters for a curve, choose
the arc-length s itself as parameter, then a few nice things happen. Consider the tangent vector with
respect to the parameter s,
dX(s)
t= .
ds
This is a unit vector:  2
2 d
t =vv = 1,
ds

10
where the last equality follows from the definition of arc-length s. Another way to look at it is simply
as the decomposition of the tangent vector with respect to an arbitrary parameter in its magnitude
and direction along a unit vector,
v=vt

The second derivative with respect to arc-length

dt d2 X
w= =
ds ds2
is perpendicular to the tangent vector since
d
(t t) = 2t w = 0 .
ds
So we can define the unit normal to the curve as
w
n= .
w

On a plane the two vectors {t, n} form an orthonormal basis adapted to the curve.
In space, they define a plane, called the osculating plane . In space, we need a third vector to
complete the basis. We use the bi-normal vector,

b=tn

and we have a nice orthonormal basis adapted to the curve, given by the three mutually orthogonal
unit vectors {t, n, b}. It is called the Frenet-Serret basis. Note that the two normals {n, b} describe
the extrinsic geometry of the curve, i.e. how the curve is embedded in space.
The Frenet-Serret basis satisfies the very elegant Frenet-Serret equations
dt
= n,
ds
dn
= t b ,
ds
db
= n,
ds
where
= ww
is the curvature of the curve. Basically, the curvature tells us how much the curve bends with respect
to a straight line. The radius of curvature of the curve is given by
1
Rc = .


Do not blush and do not smile, osculating means also kissing. Mysteries of the english language.

11
For a circle, the radius of curvature coincides with its radius. For a straight line, the radius of
curvature is infinite. The quantity is a second curvature, called for some historical reason torsion,
which says how much the curve pulls away from the osculating plane formed by t and n, in other
words how much the curve is non-planar. For fun one can calculate the torsion of a circular helix, or
maybe not. The torsion depends on three derivatives of the curve functions X(s) as

1 d3 X
= b 3 .
ds
Clearly hates straight lines.
The two curvatures {(), ()} describe the geometry of the curve in the following sense.
There is a fundamental theorem for curves that states that given {(), ()}, they determine
uniquely, up to translations and rotations, the curve X() .
The mechanical analogy is apparent:

parameter time t
curve X() trajectory x(t)
tangent vector v() velocity v(t)
curvature () acceleration magnitude a(t)

For the acceleration vector we have the somewhat not so elegant expression

d2 X
 2 
dX
=v n+ v v.
d2 d2

A good math book on the subject is by the brazilian Manfred Do Carmo, Differential Geometry of Curves and
Surfaces (ed. Pearson, 1976), where both the local and global geometries are considered. It is considered elementary
= undergraduate. There is much more to the story on the global side. See also Frenet-Serret formulas in Wikipedia
and references therein, if you want to know more.

12