Professional Documents
Culture Documents
where ∂y/∂xi is the partial derivative of y with respect to xi. (The superscripts on x are
just indices, not exponents.) The scalar quantity dy is called the total differential of y.
This formula just expresses the fact that the total incremental change in y equals the sum
of the "sensitivities" of y to the independent variables multiplied by the respective
incremental changes in those variables. (See Appendix 2 for a slightly more rigorous
definition.)
then dy equals the scalar (dot) product of these two vectors, i.e., we have dy = g×d.
Regarding the variables x1, x2,..., xn as coordinates on a manifold, the function y =
f(x1,x2,...,xn) defines a scalar field on that manifold, g is the gradient of y (often denoted
as ), and d is the differential position of x (often denoted as dx), all evaluated about
some nominal point [x1,x2,...,xn] on the manifold.
Thus, letting D denote the vector [dX1,dX2,...,dXn] we see that the components of D are
related to the components of d by the equation
This is the prototypical transformation rule for a contravariant tensor of the first order.
On the other hand, the gradient vector g = Ñy is a covariant tensor, so it doesn't transform
in accord with this rule. To find the correct transformation rule for the gradient (and for
covariant tensors in general), note that if the system of functions Fi is invertible (which it
is if and only if the determinant of the Jacobian is non-zero), then the original coordinates
can be expressed as some functions of these new coordinates, xi = fi(X1, X2, ..., Xn) for i
= 1, 2, .., n. This enables us to write the total differentials of the original coordinates as
If we now substitute these expressions for the total coordinate differentials into equation
(1) and collect by differentials of the new coordinates, we get
Thus, the components of the gradient of g of y with respect to the Xi coordinates are
given by the quantities in parentheses. If we let G denote the gradient of y with respect to
these new coordinates, we have
This is the prototypical transformation rule for covariant tensors of the first order.
Comparing this with the contravariant rule given by (2), we see that they both define the
transformed components as linear combinations of the original components, but in the
contravariant case the coefficients are the partials of the new coordinates with respect to
the old, whereas in the covariant case the coefficients are the partials of the old
coordinates with respect to the new.
The key attribute of a tensor is that it's representations in different coordinate systems
depend only on the relative orientations and scales of the coordinate axes at that point,
not on the absolute values of the coordinates. This is why the absolute position vector
pointing from the origin to a particular object in space is not a tensor, because the
components of its representation depend on the absolute values of the coordinates. In
contrast, the coordinate differentials transform based solely on local information.
So far we have discussed only first-order tensors, but we can define tensors of any order.
One of the most important examples of a second-order tensor is the metric tensor. Recall
that the generalized Pythagorean theorem enables us to express the squared differential
distance ds along a path on the spacetime manifold to the corresponding differential
components dt, dx, dy, dz as a general quadratic function of those differentials as follows
Naturally if we set g00 = −g11 = −g22 = −g33 = 1 and all the other gij coefficients to zero,
this reduces to the Minkowski metric. However, a different choice of coordinate systems
(or a different intrinsic geometry, which will be discussed in subsequent sections)
requires the use of the full formula. To simplify the notation, it's customary to use the
indexed variables x0, x1, x2, x3 in place of t, x, y, z respectively. This allows us to express
the above metrical relation in abbreviated form as
To abbreviate the notation even more, we adopt Einstein's convention of omitting the
summation symbols altogether, and simply stipulating that summation from 0 to 3 is
implied over any index that appears more than once in a given product. With this
convention the above expression is written as
Notice that this formula expresses something about the intrinsic metrical relations of the
space, but it does so in terms of a specific coordinate system. If we considered the
metrical relations at the same point in terms of a different system of coordinates (such as
changing from Cartesian to polar coordinates), the coefficients gµν would be different.
Fortunately there is a simple way of converting the gµν from one system of coordinates to
another, based on the fact that they describe a purely localistic relation among differential
quantities. Suppose we are given the metrical coefficients gµν for the coordinates xα, and
we are also given another system of coordinates yα that are defined in terms of the xα by
some arbitrary continuous functions
Assuming the Jacobian of this transformation isn't zero, we know that it's invertible, and
so we can just as well express the original coordinates as continuous functions (at this
point) of the new coordinates
Now we can evaluate the total derivatives of the original coordinates in terms of the new
coordinates. For example, dx0 can be written as
and similarly for the dx1, dx2, and dx3. The product of any two of these differentials, dxµ
and dxν, is of the form
The first three factors on the right hand side obviously represent the coefficient of dyαdyβ
in the metric formula with respect to the y coordinates, so we've shown that the array of
metric coefficients transforms from the x to the y coordinate system according to the
equation
Notice that each component of the new metric array is a linear combination of the old
metric components, and the coefficients are the partials of the old coordinates with
respect to the new. Arrays that transform in this way are called covariant tensors.
On the other hand, if we define an array Aµν with the components (dxµ/ds)(dxν/ds) where
s denotes a path parameter along some particular curve in space, then equation (2) tells us
that this array transforms according to the rule
This is very similar to the previous formula, except that the partial derivatives are of the
new coordinates with respect to the old. Arrays whose components transform according
to this rule are called contra-variant tensors.
When we speak of an array being transformed from one system of coordinates to another,
it's clear that the array must have a definite meaning independent of the system of
coordinates. We could, for example, have an array of scalar quantities, whose values are
the same at a given point, regardless of the coordinate system. However, the components
of the array might still be required to change for different systems. For example, suppose
the temperature at the point (x,y,z) in a rectangular tank of water is given by the scalar
field T(x,y,z), where x,y,z are Cartesian coordinates with origin at the geometric center of
the tank. If we change our system of coordinates by moving the origin, say, to one of the
corners of the tank, the function T(x,y,z) must change to T(x−x0, y−y0, z z0). But at a
given physical point the value of T is unchanged.
Notice that g20 is the coefficient of (dy)(dt), and g02 is the coefficient of (dt)(dy), so
without loss of generality we could combine them into the single term (g20 + g02)(dt)(dy).
Thus the individual values of g20 and g02 are arbitrary for a given metrical equation,
since all that matters is the sum (g20 + g02). For this reason we're free specify each of
those coefficients as half the sum, which results in g20 = g02. The same obviously applies
to all the other diagonally symmetric pairs, so for the sake of definiteness and simplicity
we can set gab = gba. It's important to note, however, that this symmetry property doesn't
apply to all tensors. In general we have no a priori knowledge of the symmetries (if any)
of an arbitrary tensor.
Incidentally, when we refer to a vector (or, more generally, a tensor) as being either
contravariant or covariant we're abusing the language slightly, because those terms really
just signify two different conventions for interpreting the components of the object with
respect to a given coordinate system, whereas the essential attributes of a vector or tensor
are independent of the particular coordinate system in which we choose to express it. In
general, any given vector or tensor (in a metrical manifold) can be expressed in both
contravariant and covariant form with respect to any given coordinate system. For
example, consider the vector P shown below.
We should note that when dealing with a vector (or tensor) field on a manifold each
element of the field exists entirely at a single point of the manifold, with a direction and a
magnitude, as opposed to an arrow extending from one point in the manifold to another.
(For example, we might have a vector field describing the direction and speed of the
wind at each point in a given volume of air.) However, for the purpose of illustrating the
relation between contravariant and covariant components, we are focusing on simple
displacement vectors in a flat metrical space, which can be considered to extend from one
point to another.
Figure 1 shows an arbitrary coordinate system with the axes X1 and X2, and the
contravariant and covariant components of the position vector P with respect to these
coordinates. As can be seen, the jth contravariant component consists of the projection of
P onto the jth axis parallel to the other axis, whereas the jth covariant component consists
of the projection of P into the jth axis perpendicular to that axis. This is the essential
distinction (up to scale factors) between the contravariant and covariant ways of
expressing a vector or, more generally, a tensor. (It may seem that the naming convention
is backwards, because the "contra" components go with the axes, whereas the "co"
components go against the axes, but historically these names were given on the basis on
the transformation laws that apply to these two different interpretations.)
If the coordinate system is "orthogonal" (meaning that the coordinate axes are mutually
perpendicular) then the contravariant and covariant interpretations are identical (up to
scale factors). This can be seen by imagining that we make the coordinate axes in Figure
1 perpendicular to each other. Thus when we use orthogonal coordinates we are
essentially using both contravariant and covariant coordinates, because in such a context
the only difference between them (at any given point) is scale factors. It’s worth noting
that "orthogonal" doesn't necessarily imply "rectilinear". For example, polar coordinates
are not rectilinear, i.e., the axes are not straight lines, but they are orthogonal, because as
we vary the angle we are always moving perpendicular to the local radial axis. Thus the
metric of a polar coordinate system is diagonal, just as is the metric of a Cartesian
coordinate system, and so the contravariant and covariant forms at any given point differ
only by scale factors (although these scale factor may vary as a function of position).
Only when we consider systems of coordinates that are not mutually perpendicular do the
contravariant and covariant forms differ (at a given point) by more than just scale factors.
which shows that the covariant components with respect to the X coordinates are the
same, up to a scale factor of cos(θ), as the contravariant components with respect to the Ξ
coordinates, and vice versa. For this reason the two coordinate systems are called "duals"
of each other. Making use of the additional relations
the squared length of P can be expressed in terms of any of these sets of components as
follows:
In general the squared length of an arbitrary vector on a (flat) 2-dimensional surface can
be given in terms of the contravariant components by an expression of the form
where the coefficients guv are the components of the covariant metric tensor. This tensor
is always symmetrical, meaning that guv = gvu, so there are really only three independent
elements for a two-dimensional manifold. With Einstein's summation convention we can
express the preceding equation more succinctly as
From the preceding formulas we can see that the covariant metric tensor for the X
coordinate system in Figure 2 is
whereas for the dual coordinate system Ξ the covariant metric tensor is
noting that cos(ω′) = −cos(ω). The determinant g of each of these matrices is sin(ω)2, so
we can express the relationship between the dual systems of coordinates as
We will find that the inverse of a metric tensor is also very useful, so let's use the
superscripted symbol guv to denote the inverse of a given guv. The inverse metric tensors
for the X and Ξ coordinate systems are
Comparing the left-hand matrix with the previous expression for s2 in terms of the
covariant components, we see that
so the inverse of the covariant metric tensor is indeed the contravariant metric tensor.
Now let's consider a vector x whose contravariant components relative to the X axes of
Figure 2 are x1, x2, and let’s multiply this by the covariant metric tensor as follows:
Remember that summation is implied over the repeated index u, whereas the index v
appears only once (in any given product) so this expression applies for any value of v.
Thus the expression represents the two equations
which agrees with the previously stated relations between the covariant and contravariant
components, noting that sin(θ) = cos(ω). If we perform the inverse operation, multiplying
these covariant components by the contravariant metric tensor, we recover the original
contravariant components, i.e., we have
Hence we can convert from the contravariant to the covariant versions of a given vector
simply by multiplying by the covariant metric tensor, and we can convert back simply by
multiplying by the inverse of the metric tensor. These operations are called "raising and
lowering of indices", because they convert x from a superscripted to a subscripted
variable, or vice versa. In this way we can also create mixed tensors, i.e., tensors that are
contravariant in some of their indices and covariant in others.
Many other useful relations can be expressed in this way. For example, the angle θ
between two vectors a and b is given by
so we need to integrate this over a given path to determine the length of the path. These
are exactly the formulas used in 4-dimensional spacetime to determine the spatial and
temporal "distances" between events in general relativity.
For any given index we could generalize the idea of contravariance and covariance to
include mixtures of these two qualities in a single index. This is not ordinarily done, but
it is possible. Recall that the contravariant components are measured parallel to the
coordinate axes, and the covariant components are measured normal to all the other axes.
These are the two extreme cases, but we could define components with respect to
directions that make a fixed angle relative to the coordinate axes and normals. The
transformation rule for such representations is more complicated than either (6) or (8),
but each component can be resolved into sub-components that are either purely
contravariant or purely covariant, so these two extreme cases suffice to express all
transformation characteristics of tensors.