Invariance and covariance in physics 1

Invariance and covariance in physics

From my book “Selected stories in mathematics and physics”

George Mpantes Amazon

Lambert Academic Publishing

A mathematical concept became a physical principle by Einstein. Einstein’s

talent was just this: to interpret physically the mathematical results.

George Mpantes www.mpantes.gr

Abstract

The Newtonian mechanics is invariant under the simple Galilean

transformations. This invariance was the mathematical description of Galilean

relativity of motion. The electromagnetic theory of Maxwell (the two of the

four equations) failed in invariance by terms in frame velocity, under rectilinear

transformations, because of the partial derivatives with respect to t. This

invariance was achieved by the Hertz’s invariants equation of Maxwell, published

in 1892.

Finally physicists decided that electromagnetics was covariant (not

invariant) under the Lorentz transformations of coordinates, and this covariance

was the mathematical description of Einstein’s principle of relativity. This

behavior of electromagnetic theory is due to the non-operationalist definition of

the concept of the electromagnetic field.

The transformations

Invariance of Newton’s mechanics in frame velocity

The covariance

Objectivity and covariance

The covariance as a physical principle

 Invariance and covariance in physics 2

The operationalist point of view

Sources

The transformations
…if the form of a law is not changed by certain coordinate transformations , that

is, if it is the same law in terms of either set of coordinates , we shall call that law

invariant or covariant with respect to the transformations considered..(P.G. Bergmann

(Introduction to the theory of relativity , Prentice Hall, New York 1946 p.10-11)

This verbal confusion about the terms “invariance” and “covariance”

arises because both are forms of mathematical form preservation. But what is

their distinction in their physical implications ? This disjoining in the above

reference is referred to the same physical reality or represent deeper

differences in the whole course of physics?

I shall prove that these meanings, spring from mathematics, and

particularly from the theory of transformations, but for physics, are related to

the operational school of definition of physical concepts.

…..the transformation idea has more than historical interest. It plays a major

role in the present day study of physical laws. In fact , the use of vector analysis as a

descriptive language for physical sciences is largely based on the invariant properties of

vector relations under certain types of transformations. (Introduction of vector and

tensor analysis Robert C. Wrede (Dover p. 35)

But what is transformed?

The history of mathematical transformations is connected in physics

with the Newton’s principle of relativity:

Uniform rectilinear motion cannot be intrinsically determined by

1
mechanical experiments. It has it’s mathematical foundations in the

transformation of the mechanical laws, under the Galilean transformations which

“The motion of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves
1

, whether the space is at rest , or moves uniformly in a right line without circular

motion” Newton Corollary V to the “Laws of motion”

 Invariance and covariance in physics 3

(Galilean transformations) are physical presuppositions for space and time of

Newtonian Universe.

From the mathematical point of view, this physical assumption refers

to the frames of reference of classical mechanics, and the facts of immediate

concern may be put as follows: it is assumed that a frame of reference (called

by the physicists in inertial frame) exist in which Newton’s laws of classical

mechanics hold. Any frame in uniform rectilinear motion in relation to the

original system can be shown to be an inertial frame. We associate a rectangular

Cartesian coordinate system with each reference frame.. The close relationship

of this principle for classifying geometries, to the demand that physical laws

have invariant mathematical forms with respect to a given transformation group,

was pointed out by Klein. The orthogonal linear transformations accomplishes

the first unification of geometry and the Galilean transformations the first

unification of physics. (classical mechanics).

Invariance of Newton’s mechanics in frame velocity

Example 1. In mathematics we say that the laws of mechanics2 are

invariant under the simple Galilean transformations

r΄ =r-υt t΄=t …………..(1)

where we associate the coordinates r΄ and r with a particle P moving

uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to either system, the axes of the two

rectangular Cartesian coordinate systems are parallel (have the same orientation

in space) and the O’ system is in uniform translatory motion with respect to O.

Newton’s second law of motion is

 
d 2r
m  F .......... (2)
dt 2
and it is a measure of force. So we must to prove that force in relation

(2) is invariant.

2
I. every body tends to remain in a state of rest of uniform rectilinear motion unless compelled to
change it’s state by action of an impressed force.
II . The “rate of change of motion”, that is the change of momentum , is proportional to the
impressed force and occurs in the direction of the applied force.
III. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
 Invariance and covariance in physics 4

Since m is invariant in Newtonian mechanics we have to prove the

invariance of acceleration.

Differentiating (1) twice we get the left-hand term

   
dr dr ΄  d 2r d 2r΄
   ,......... ... 2 
dt dt dt dt΄ 2
   
d 2r d 2r
So m 2  (m 2 )΄  F  F΄ viz
dt dt
(2) becomes
 
d 2r
(m 2 )΄  F΄ .......... (2΄ ) in the primed system
dt
We see that the form of the equation is the same, and each term is

unaltered by the Galilean transformation. (by term we mean any additive

quantity). We call this equation Galilean invariant under this

transformation.

We say that the second law of motion (and hence all the three) are

Galilean invariant.

Example 2. the covariance

We shall study

now the transformation

of equation (2)

(now in the form

d
Fk  (m k )......( 2΄ )
dt
under coordinate axis rotation. The two systems are in uniform

rectilinear relative motion but have different orientation in space. It is assumed

as before that at t=0 the origins coincide. The path of the of motion of one
 Invariance and covariance in physics 5

frame with respect to the other is illustrated in figure 1 and the complete

transformation is given

x i
x i  c ij x j   i t wit h c ij  .......... ..( 4)
x j
The transformation of (2) under (4) will result from the axis rotation,

as the translation does not vary the equation (2).

This rotation is given by the linear transformations

 x1   c11 c12 c31  x 1 

 2  2  
 x    c1 c 22 c32  x 2 .
 x3   c3 c 23 c33  x 3 
   1

x k
Multiplying (2΄) with and summating for κ we have
x r

x k d x d
Fk  (m k  k )  Fr  (m r )......... .......( 5)
x r dt x r dt

Comparison (2΄) and (5) shows that the two terms of (2΄) undergo

similar “scrambling” of components in the barred system with the same

coefficients c ij

For example this scrambling (linear combination of all components) is

written for one component

x1 x 2 x 3
F  F1  F2  F3 .......... ...( 6) .
x x x

This scrambling is a consequence of the vector character of the

Newtonian force and not of the fact that F satisfies the Newton equation of

motion.

So the individual terms of the Newtonian law of motion, transform under

an axis rotation to the same rule (of linear combination). The form of equation

(2΄) , is the same in (5), but it’s terms are altered by the

transformation, in the same way. We call this equation Galilean covariant.

The law’s form expressed in the new symbols is independent of the orientation

of the frame of reference.

 Invariance and covariance in physics 6

The covariance above was a mathematical demonstration of the abilities

of transformations, as the rotations of axes had no motion, so it has no relation

with the Galilean relativity.

It might be added that if c ij vary with time –so that a transformation to

rotating axes is described-, equation (2) is neither invariant nor covariant. The

physical explanation is that rotation induces extra “non-inertial” forces , so the

simplest form of motional relativity fails.

But such scrambling of components in (6) as the result of covariance we

get in the formula of transformation of the electric and magnetic three vectors

between two Galilean frames, under (now) the simple Lorentz transformation

E1 '  E1 , E 2 '   ( E 2  H 3 / c), E 3 '   ( E3  H 2 / c).......

H1 '  H1 , H 2 '   ( H 2  E3 / c), H 3 '   ( H 3  E 2 / c)........( 7)

It should be noted that the transformation given above is a consequence

of the tensor character of Frs (electromagnetic tensor) as t Lorentz

transformations, and depends in no way on the fact that Frs satisfies Maxwell’s

equations. (J. L.Synge: Relativity: the special theory p 317)

Objectivity and covariance

There is a well defined mathematical distinction that we find in vector

and tensor entities. They are composed of components which transform in a

change of the coordinate system, they co-vary with the system, but the laws of

transformation are such that if all the components are zero in the initial system

, they will be zero in every system. So a tensor equation holds in every system if

it holds in one.
This consideration expresses a basic idea of modern science. The system of the

tensor components is covariant , i.e it has a different numerical composition for each

coordinate system. Yet we express in this fashion a state that it is independent of the

coordinate system, i.e. an invariant state. The tensor as a whole is an invariant

magnitude. We can recognize this property from its representation by means of

components , since the components can be calculated for every coordinate system , if

they are known for one.. it is unfortunate that the physical terminology does not reflect
 Invariance and covariance in physics 7

this well-defined mathematical distinction. (the philosophy of space and time p.236

Hans Reichenbach)

We saw that in systems with different orientations in space, we have a

covariant form of the second law of Newton, where the description of the

terms, can be represented differently in different coordinate systems.

……Each of these descriptions presents the objective state in a particular way.

The totality of these descriptions , however, defines an invariant situation , so to speak,

namely, whereas one description gives only one component of the situation, it’s

projection on a particular coordinate system. Among these components there is no

difference with regard in truth. (Reichenbach p.241)

Here Reichenbach denotes that an objective state, here the Newtonian

laws, is the totality of the covariant states, as we have seen that

mathematically, -in linear transformations3-, the covariant states are produced

from the various orientations of the systems of coordinates, and of course,

the orientations in space are infinite. But

We can visualize this as analogous to the geometrical meanings of

equality and similarity. Invariance is as equality, as the scheme of the idol

(image) of an object in a flat mirror, and covariance is as similarity, as the

geometrical similar scheme of this idol. We can study the properties of the

object in either of the two schemes, the similarity does not affect the causal

chains of geometry of the schemes, as covariance does not affect the

Newtonian laws of physics in various systems of coordinates.

These as for philosophy but in physics there are different opinions for

invariance and covariance from Hamilton’s time till today, in Thomas Phipps book

(HERETICAL VERITIES Thomas E. Phipps p.120)

…Hamilton had an opportunity to make the opposite realization; namely that the

covariance of the Newtonian form of the equations of mechanics (under rotations as we

demonstrated)was not an asset but a clue to imperfection of the form. Working from

this or other clues , Hamilton produced “canonical” forms of the mechanical equations

3
Einstein claimed that the coordinate transformations transformations (between two Lorentz
charts with a common origin) must be linear “on account of the properties of homogeneity which
we attribute to space and time.
 Invariance and covariance in physics 8

that were genuinely invariant under a huge group of (so called “contact” )

transformations – a group containing coordinate transformations , rotations etc. as small

subgroups. ..in consequence physics flowered into canonical mechanics , the Hamilton -

Jacobi equation and (a short step onward) the Schroedinger equation and quantum

mechanics……

Beyond the Hamilton’s canonical forms of equations of mechanics, there

is a basic denial of symmetry in the edifice of physics. Maxwell’s equations hold

in it’s form, only in the inertia frame of the observer- for his era in the frame

of the immovable ether – and nowhere else. In all others inertial frames their

terms alter , because alter the transformations , which now express different

ideas for space and time , than Newton’s. But the invariance was rejected from

physics. It is like Lorentz’s transformations to impose a rotation of axes in

inertial frames and this is represented in four-dimensional systems in

Minkowski’s space-time.

The covariance as a physical principle. The end of invariance

Special relativity interpreted for physics, exactly these mathematical

results. It took almost three centuries of development of physics, before the

principle of relativity was extended by Albert Einstein to the case of optical

and electromagnetic phenomena , as observed in a closed , uniformly moving

cabin.

It was Einstein’s principle of relativity: Uniform rectilinear motion cannot

be intrinsically determined by any experiment, mechanical or electromagnetical or

optical . But Maxwell’s equations were not invariant as were Newton’s, under the

Galilean transformations. Now the equations of physics ought to be Lorentz

covariant because this occurred for the equations of Maxwell. Newton’s

equations had to change because this covariance was now the physical state of

the equations.

Why was impossible a Galilean invariance of the Maxwell’s equations, as

with Newtonian equations of mechanics? because the partial derivative with

 Invariance and covariance in physics 9

respect to t, does not transform invariantly under such a rectilinear

transformation.

We see that applying (1)and the chain rule of differentiation, we have

 x'  y '  z '  t ' 

 .    
t t x' t y ' t z ' t t '
   
 ( x y z )
t΄ x΄ y΄ z΄

Or

  
   .΄ .......... .......... (8)
t t΄
So partial derivative with respect to t, as two of the four Maxwell

equations, fail of invariance by terms of first order in frame velocity. So there

is not Galilean invariance for Maxwell equations. The non-invariance of Maxwell’s

equations under Galilean transformation, was interpreted (a) that an ether

existed for electromagnetism (though not for mechanics) (b) that this ether

existed in a physically detectable state of motion.

The invariance now became covariance, under a new system of

transformations, the Lorentz transformations.

The operationalist view of point

What if, we replaced partial time derivatives, whenever they appeared in

Maxwell’s equations , with total time derivatives? These were Hertz’s equations,

which become rigorously invariant under Galilean transformation, just as

Newton’s equations are. But we had to change our views for the field.

What physically is a field?

We read in Thomas Phipps (heretical verities p.109)

Definition: A field is what is “measured” by (i.e produces quantifiable

response in) a field detector.

Definition: A “field detector is any object that causes the field to

manifest its presence locally.

 Invariance and covariance in physics 10

Phipps claims that this definition is better than: “fields are mathematical

vectors” (taught at a prominent east coast U.S. university)

How Hertz’s equations rendered Galilean invariant? He replaced partial

time derivatives with total time derivatives, where the total time derivative

inserts (8) a term proportional to some kind of velocity -the velocity υd of the

detector in the new-Hertzian interpretation-, and the Galilean velocity

transformation generates a new term which cancels the velocity υd, that spoils

the Galilean invariance of Maxwell’s equations. So the operationalist definition

of the field abolishes the necessity for the Lorentz transformations for the

covariance of Maxwell’s equations, giving a new direction in the whole of physics.

But as we Know today the Galilean invariance was converted to

Lorentz covariance and the proper term for both is “invariance in form”.

So we have the final formula

……Any relation between physical quantities must be expressed by means of

form-invariant or covariant equations C.Moller (the theory of relativity Oxford 1972

p.96)

Sources:

HERETICAL VERITIES: MATHEMATICAL THEMES IN PHYSICAL

DESCRIPTION (Thomas E .Phipps, Jr, classic non-fiction library, Urbana)

Relativity: the special theory: (J.L.Synge North-Holland publishing

company Amsterdam New York Oxford)
Introduction to vector and tensor Analysis: (Robert C.Wrede,
Dover)
Relativity and geometry : (Roberto Torretti, Dover)
The philosophy of space and time : (Hans Reichenbach, Dover)
Space, time , matter: (Hermann Weyl, Dover)

George Mpantes (on scribd) www. mpantes.gr

Invariance and covariance in physics 11