Why does one form need to be used over the other?

In summary, the usual curl operation in differential geometry is generalized to ^*dA, where A is a one-form. In three dimensions, this gives back a one-form with components \sqrt{g} \epsilon_{ijk} \partial^j A^k. However, the corresponding contravariant components are \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \epsilon^{ijk} \partial_j A_k. To obtain the formula we learn in elementary calculus, the second form must be used. The same applies for the generalization of the gradient, where the formula for covariant components of d\phi = \partial_i \phi must be used to get the usual formula for the gradient. The reason for choosing one form over another
  • #1
nrqed
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,766
297
In differential geometry, the usual curl operation that we are familiar with from elementary calculus is generalized to [itex] \,^*dA [/itex] (where A is a one-form). In three-dimensions, this gives back a one-form.

Now, the components of this one-form are [itex] \sqrt{g} \epsilon_{ijk} \partial^j A^k [/itex].

however, the corresponding contravariant components are [itex] \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \epsilon^{ijk} \partial_j A_k [/itex].

Now, to obtain the formula that we learned in elementary calculus, it is the second form that must be used. Why is that the case?

On the other hand, if one looks at the generalization of the gradient, it's the formula for the covariant components of [itex] d \phi = \partial_i \phi [/itex] that one must use to get the usual formula we have learned for the gradient.

So what is the rationale behind choosing one form over another? Maybe one must pick the form that differentiates with respect to the [itex]x^i [/itex] so that one must have the index on the partial derivative downstairs?

I am sure there is something fundamental going on here that I am obviosuly completely missing.

Thanks

Patrick
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
learn differential forms.
 
  • #3
It is "contravarient" components that we use in "normal" Rn vector. Strictly speaking the "covarient" components are the components of the dual space. In Rn ("Euclidean Tensors") there is a natural isomorphism with its dual so that we never need to mention covariant components.
 
  • #4
mathwonk said:
learn differential forms.

I thought that from my post it was clear that this is what I am trying to do.

Thank you for your help. When students ask questions about inclined planes, friction problems and circular motion in the Homework forum I will be sure to reply by telling them "Learn Mechanics"!
 
  • #5
HallsofIvy said:
It is "contravarient" components that we use in "normal" Rn vector. Strictly speaking the "covarient" components are the components of the dual space. In Rn ("Euclidean Tensors") there is a natural isomorphism with its dual so that we never need to mention covariant components.

Thanks for your help.

This makes sense to me and that was my first inclination. But when I look at the generalization of the gradient through the exterior derivative of a scalar function [itex] d \phi [/itex] with components [itex] \partial_i \phi [/itex], it seems that I now have to consider the covariant components in that case. I mean, if I wanted the contravariant components, I would need to consider [itex] g^{ji} \partial_i \phi [/itex] but this does not give the components of the gradient, let's say in spherical coordinates, that we learn in elementary calculus.
 
  • #6
well sorry it wasnt helpful - i was a little puzzled by the very coordinate dependent approach you were using, so maybe i should have said, try to learn a more intrinsic version of differential forms, like the one in david bachmans little book, once read here communally.

curl is just "d" of a one form, and the result is a 2 form, not a one form, even in three space. so the first thing to learn is that a one looks like

fdx +gdy + hdz and that d of it, i.e. the curl,

looks like df^dx + dg^dy + dh^dz

= oops i need a curly d now,

maybe ill use a question mark

?f/?y dy^dx + ?f/?z ^dz^dx

+ ?g/?x dx^dy + ?g/?z dz^dx

+ ?h/?x dx^dz +?h/?y dy^dz

now rearrange all these terms by the rule dy^dx = -dx^dy etc...and note i have already deleted the terms dx^dx, dy^dy, dz^dz.

try it.
 
  • #7
if i may make another suggestion, when asking for help, a comment like "in fact that's what I am trying to do" is more productive than "if you weren't so stupid youd realize that was what I am trying to do." just a suggestion.

you see what you wrote was so far from differential forms as i view them, that indeed i did not realize that was what you were trying to do.
 
  • #8
mathwonk said:
if i may make another suggestion, when asking for help, a comment like "in fact that's what I am trying to do" is more productive than "if you weren't so stupid youd realize that was what I am trying to do." just a suggestion.

you see what you wrote was so far from differential forms as i view them, that indeed i did not realize that was what you were trying to do.

I apologize sincerely.
Since I started my post by mentioning the intrinsic expression [itex] \,^* dA[/itex] and then I talked A being a one-form, I had mistakenly thought that you had seen that and that your remark was derogatory since I was (in my mind) clearly trying to make sense of the meaning of this form.

My sincere apologies.

Patrick
 
  • #9
mathwonk said:
well sorry it wasnt helpful - i was a little puzzled by the very coordinate dependent approach you were using, so maybe i should have said, try to learn a more intrinsic version of differential forms, like the one in david bachmans little book, once read here communally.

curl is just "d" of a one form, and the result is a 2 form, not a one form, even in three space. so the first thing to learn is that a one looks like

fdx +gdy + hdz and that d of it, i.e. the curl,

looks like df^dx + dg^dy + dh^dz

= oops i need a curly d now,

maybe ill use a question mark

?f/?y dy^dx + ?f/?z ^dz^dx

+ ?g/?x dx^dy + ?g/?z dz^dx

+ ?h/?x dx^dz +?h/?y dy^dz

now rearrange all these terms by the rule dy^dx = -dx^dy etc...


and note i have already deleted the terms dx^dx, dy^dy, dz^dz.

try it.


Yes, indeed, I know that this works. But I am trying to get the general expression for the curl in arbitrary coordinates, not just in cartesian coordinates (which is where the power of the differential form approach should become more clear to me). And then it seems that to really get the general expression, it's not enough to apply the exterior derivative, one must then take the Hodge dual. This is why I am looking at [itex] \,^* dA [/itex] (which is obviously a one-form if I am in 3 dimensions) and not just [itex] dA [/itex]. My goal is to obtain from the differential form approach all the expressions we learn in elementary calculus for the curl in spherical or cylindrical coordinates as well as the gradient and the divergence. But then I run into the question I mentioned in my first post about having to make a certain choice of using the components of the one-form I get or if I have to use the metric to get the contravariant components. I am trying to understand what motivates one choice over another.

I find that often, if one concentrates purely on the mathematical definitions, things are not too difficult. But when trying to connect with the equations used in physics, I often encounter some difficulty.

Thank you for your help, it is appreciated.
 
  • #10
thank you for your kind response. my sincere apologies as well.

and i could not tell the hodge star from a small smudge!

but differential forms are so suited that they work the same in all

systems of coordinates.

(and no need for a metric, which hodge thery requires.)for instance if x and y are functions of u and v, then an expression in dx and dy is simply replaced by one in terms of du and dv by means of

dx = ?dx/?u du + ?x/?v dv, and so on for dy.

so i am still unable to understand why it makes any difference what coordinates we use? probably i am being slow, but i seem to succeed in using differential forms without ever caring which coodinates i am using.
 
  • #11
i look at them this way: suppose we have a space, with no coordinates at all.

[for purposes of deriving component expressions, ignore this blah blah and see example below.]

then to every parametrized curve in the space we can assign a velocity vector at every point, using the coordinates on the time interval, or domain of the curve.

this gives us a family of vectors in our space.dually, if we have a function f on our space, then at each point we have a one form df, i.e. a linear function on vectors, which assigns to a given vector v, the derivative at t=0 of any curve through v, composed with f.

similarly, there are families of parallelograms in space, tangent plkanes to pieces of surface, and 2 forms which are functions on parallelograms.

then justa s one can take the boundary of a piece of surface, getting a curve, dually one can take d of a one form, which acts on a surface by letting the original one form act on the boundary of th surface.

i.e. curl of a one form is just adjoint to the action of the boun dary of a surface. then in varous coordinates this geometry and calculus gets computed numerically, via the fundamental theorem of calculus.

i.e. greens and stokes and gauss' theorems say that the goofy formula for d of a one form, i.e,. curl, grad, etc,, is in fact just a comoputation of this adjoint action.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
letme see if i can do an example, in 2 dimensions. saypollar coordinates, which will at least suffice for cylindrical ones.

so then x = x(r,t) = rcost, y = rsint, so dx = dx/dr dr + dx/dt dt, etc..


then write also f for
f(x(r,t), y(r,t)),

so if we have a one form in x,y coords, say w = f(x,y)dx + g(x,y)dy,

then you can either put it in r,t coordinates and then take d, or vice versa, and you get the same result, which is nice.

i.e. dw = (after canceling and rearranging) [dg/dx - df/dy] dxdy

and then replacing dx by dx = dx/dr dr + dx/dt dt = (i hope)

cost dr - rsint dt, and replacing dy by let's see, dy/dr dr + dy/dt dt

= sint dr + rcost dt, we get, omigosh, what was i doing??

oh yeah, dw = [dg/dx - df/dy] dxdy

= [dg/dx - df/dy] [cost dr - rsint dt] [sint dr + rcost dt]

= [dg/dx - df/dy] [rcos^2 t+ rsin^2 t] drdt

= r [dg/dx - df/dy] drdt .

good heavens, no wonder i dislike coordinates, they are so messy.

ok anyway, i am claiming this is the same as if we first rtansformed into r,t coordinates and then took d.

this i usually leave as exercise for the hapless student (not really knowing if it is true or not, but believing somehow it is.)

well let's make a stab at it.
 
  • #13
to be continued...

ok back, again we have w = f(x,y)dx + g(x,y)dy,

so tranforming to polar coordinates first gives,

w = w = f(x,y)[dx/dr dr + dx/dt dt] + g(x,y)[dy/dr dr + dy/dt dt]

= [f dx/dr g dy/dr] dr + [f dx/dt + g dy/dt] dt

= [fcost + g sint]dr + [f rsint - g rcost]dt

now take d, getting oh boyy...

d/dt of that first mess times dtdr, then d/dr of that second mess times drdt.

hopefully that simplifies.

i am needed on the home front, i.e. my wife won't let me complete this mess, if you believe that. but i assure you it works really, if done right...
 
Last edited:
  • #14
mathwonk said:
to be continued...

ok back, again we have w = f(x,y)dx + g(x,y)dy,

so tranforming to polar coordinates first gives,

w = w = f(x,y)[dx/dr dr + dx/dt dt] + g(x,y)[dy/dr dr + dy/dt dt]

= [f dx/dr g dy/dr] dr + [f dx/dt + g dy/dt] dt

= [fcost + g sint]dr + [f rsint - g rcost]dt

now take d, getting oh boyy...

d/dt of that first mess times dtdr, then d/dr of that second mess times drdt.

hopefully that simplifies.

i am needed on the home front, i.e. my wife won't let me complete this mess, if you believe that. but i assure you it works really, if done right...

:smile: I hope you did not spend too much of your time writing all that! I do appreciate very much! I have to spend some time going through the details of your posts.

Just a comment: for example, in spherical coordinates, the expression we learn in elementary calculus contains a factor of [itex] 1/(r sin \theta) [/itex] which looks like [itex] 1/\sqrt{g} [/itex]. In fact, the expression [itex] \sqrt{g} \epsilon_{ijk} \partial^j A^k [/itex] that I gave in my first post is exactly the expression given for the generalization of the curl given in a book I am looking at (by Felsager. I could give the complete reference when I get back to my office).

But let me spend a bit more time digesting yoru posts and working through the calculation myself.

Thank you very much for the food for thoughts!

Regards


Patrick
 
  • #15
you are very welcome. the whole point is thaT THE operation d haS an intrinsic meaning, as explained in post 11. hence if it has a meaning independent of coordinates, then all coordinate expressions are derivable from any one.

i do recall from my courses of fourty yeARS AGo or so that the actual calculations are tedious.

the short version of the calculation i was trying to do above, is that if w is a form and f a change of variables, then f*dw = df*w.

best regards.
 
  • #16
ok let's try this again, simplifying it. the whole point is that to find the curl in polar coordinates, one can either transform to those coordinates and then use the same curl procedure as in cartesian coordinates, or vice versa, namely compute the curl in cartesian coordinates and then transform that to polar ones.

the comoputation in full has been seen to be lengthy, so let's just do the simpelst possible one, where the given one form is just dx.

then we know the curl of dx is zero, namely dx = 1dx so the curl equals

d1^dx = 0^dx = 0. and zero of course transforms to zero.

now let's do it the other way around, namely transform dx to polar coordinates, and then see if the curl of the polar transform is also zero.

but in polar coordinates, dx = dx/dr dr + dx/dt dt

= cost dr - rsint dt. then curl of that

is [d(-rsint)/dr - d(cost)/dt] drdt

= [-sint +sint]drdt = 0.

indeed there is no need to restrict to polar coordinates, for let x be any smooth function of r,t.

then we have again ddx = 0, and now

curl [dx/dr dr + dx/dt dt]

= [d^2 x/dtdr - d^2 x/drdt] drdt, which equals zero by the principle of equality of mixed partials.


next we do a more complicated one, but still simpler than those above.
 
  • #17
of all the frustrating,... i finished the calculation and the biorwser won't accept it.

advanced mode doeswn t work either, so ill break it uo in pieces.

ok, now notice that since the curl of a sum is the sum of the curls, we can restrict to things just of form fdx.

then we have curl(fdx) = df^dx = df/dy dy^dx, in cartesian coordinates.

which transforms to the polar form:

df/dy [dy/dr dr + dy/dt dt] ^ [dx/dr dr + dx/dt dt]

= df/dy [dy/dr dx/dt - dy/dt dx/dr]drdt

which will probably need some transformation later.
 
  • #18
but now going the other way around,

f dx = f [dx/dr dr + dx/xt dt],

and curl of that is, oh boy, maybe ill try to use the leibniz product rule,curl {f [dx/dr dr + dx/xt dt]}

=? df ^ [dx/dr dr + dx/xt dt] + f d[dx/dr dr + dx/xt dt] ?

= [df/dt dx/dr] dt^dr + df/dr dx/dt dr^dt

+ f [d^2 x/drdt dt^dr + d^2 x/dtdr dr^dt]

(notice i started writing wedges again because i have a repeated derivative in the denominator which looks similar to a 2 form otherwise.)
 
  • #19
man this is frustrating.
 
  • #20
and again the second part is zero because of equality of mixed partials and the fact that dr^dt = -dt^dr.

so we get just [df/dt dx/dr] dt^dr + df/dr dx/dt dr^dt]

= [df/dr dx/dt - df/dt dx/dr] dr^dt,
 
  • #21
so does [df/dt dx/dr] dt^dr + df/dr dx/dt dr^dt]

=df/dy [dy/dr dx/dt - dy/dt dx/dr]dr^dt ?

well they would be if df/dr = df/dy dy/dr, and so on, but that looks false to me, so where did i screw up? i.e. these are partials, so shouldn't we have

df/dr = df/dy dy/dr + df/dx dx/dr?

well anyway, let's hope for some canceling,
 
  • #22
i.e. [df/dr dx/dt - df/dt dx/dr] dr^dt
=
{ [df/dy dy/dr + df/dx dx/dr] dx/dt - [df/dy dy/dt + df/dx dx/dt] dx/dr} dr^dt= df/dy dy/dr dx/dt - df/dy dy/dt dx/dr

= df/dy [dy/dr dx/dt - dy/dt dx/dr]

hooray! i think we got it!.
and we did it in general coords, not just for polar coords.
 
  • #23
moral, it is easier to take the curl in cartesian coords and then transform that, than to transform first and take curl afterwards.

so the polar curl of fdx seems to be:

df/dy [-rsin^2 t -rcos^2 t] drdt = -r df/dy dr^dt.

so i am guesing the polar curl of gdy is r dg/dx dr^dt.

which would make the polar curl of fdx + gdy, equal to r[dg/dx -df/dy]dr^dt
 
  • #24
if you compare the previous result with post 12 you will see they agree.
 
  • #25
another moral is that one should learn the machinery of differential forms once for all, intrinsically, and how they transform, and then matters like this begin to look just like F*(dw) = d(F*w), and one never ever does these messy explicit calculations again, except in teaching them i guess.

i.e. the messy one was d(F*w), but the equality shows we could have done just F*(dw) instead.

peace.
 
  • #26
oh and just to make a point, notice that the sort of specific "components" you began by writing have never appeared at all. which is why i didn't even recognize your original question as really being in the same subject, or at least not in the same spirit. i.e. to me, using differential forms is about manipulating d and F*, not writing out "a upper ij" and so on.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
all you really need to know is how to use d, ^ and F*.

i.e.
heres the scoop as i see it: smooth differential forms are a differential graded exterior algebra over the smooth functions, locally freely generated by the gradients of the coordinate functions, i.e. they look like sums of products like fdx, and are graded by the number of such factors.

i.e. one has an alternating multiplication called ^, and a differentiation called d,

and for any smooth function F, there is a pullback operation F* which is a homomorphism both for ^ and for d.

I.e. F*(dw) = d(F*w), and F*(w^v) = F*w^F*v, and d obeys a graded leibniz rule, i.e. d(w^v) = dw^v +(-1)^deg(w)w^ dv.
 
  • #28
with just those rules, just knowing the rukle for taking gradients in cartesian coordintaes determiens everything, curl, div, etc,,, in all possible cordinate systems.

one never needs to write out "components" unless a particular specific calculation is needed, and if so, they should disappear immediately afterwards.
 
  • #29
mathwonk said:
with just those rules, just knowing the rukle for taking gradients in cartesian coordintaes determiens everything, curl, div, etc,,, in all possible cordinate systems.

one never needs to write out "components" unless a particular specific calculation is needed, and if so, they should disappear immediately afterwards.

Thanks for all those posts. It will take me some time to absorb that!

I see what you are saying about starting from Cartesian and then transforming,but to me it seemed interesting (and efficient) to have a formula that would directly give the components of the curl in any dimensions and in any coordinate system. Something that would not require making a change of coordinate. A master formula if you will. Do you see what I mean? For example, I wanted that if working in spherical coordinates in 3 dimensions, I could simply *directly* get the components of the culr using only the metric. Basically I was looking for a general formula. It does seem like the formula [itex] \sqrt{g} \epsilon^{ijk} \partial_j A_k [/itex] does work but I was looking to understand why it was the correct one.


Or I would also be happy to start with the exterior derivative of a one form [itex] dA[/itex] and then to have an algorithm to generate the curl out of this by working directly in the coordinate system used (spherical for example).
So I was trying to get an expression that would give directly the answer in any coordinate system without requiring to do a change of coordinate.

But I will try to reproduce all your work in details because that will teach me a different approach and I will learn from that.

Thank you!


Patrick
 
  • #30
d of a one form IS the "curl" of that one form.

i.e. no matter WHAT coordinates u,v are,

the curl of fdu + gdv is ALWAYS df^du + dg^dv, in THOSE coordinates.

e.g. the curl of the angle form dtheta, in polar coords, is ddtheta = 0.d of a one form, i.e. the curl, is always computed the same way, in all coordinates. there is no need to transform anything.

all i was doing was proving this.there is nothing else to memorize. by introducing hodge duals you are just making life needlessly more complicated.

the only time a metric is needed is when one wants to study harmonic functions, i.e.laplacians.

somehow i feel we are still not communicating. you are trying to express something which is natural in all coordinate systems, i.e. exterior derivatives d, in terms of something less natural, i.e. components gij using a metric.

perhaps you have a need for this, but i do not see it.
 
  • #31
mathwonk said:
d of a one form IS the "curl" of that one form.

i.e. no matter WHAT coordinates u,v are,

the curl of fdu + gdv is ALWAYS df^du + dg^dv, in THOSE coordinates.

e.g. the curl of the angle form dtheta, in polar coords, is ddtheta = 0.


d of a one form, i.e. the curl, is always computed the same way, in all coordinates. there is no need to transform anything.

all i was doing was proving this.


there is nothing else to memorize. by introducing hodge duals you are just making life needlessly more complicated.

the only time a metric is needed is when one wants to study harmonic functions, i.e.laplacians.

somehow i feel we are still not communicating. you are trying to express something which is natural in all coordinate systems, i.e. exterior derivatives d, in terms of something less natural, i.e. components gij using a metric.

perhaps you have a need for this, but i do not see it.


I think that it's because we are talking about different curls.

My goal (and it may be that the goal in itself seems useless but that's a different discusssion) is to recover, from a differential form approach, the following expression that we learned in elementary calculus:


[tex] \nabla \times \vec{A} = \frac{1}{r sin \theta} \bigl( \frac{\partial ( sin \theta A_{\phi})}{\partial \theta} - \frac{\partial A_{\theta}}{\partial \phi} \bigr) \hat{r} + \ldots [/tex]

This is what I am trying to obtain starting from differential forms.


regards
 
  • #32
what is del ? or nabla, or whatever?

what is A? presumably A is the vector of coordinates of the differential one form Ar dr + Atheta dtheta, but maybe not?

what coordinates are yoiu using? spherical? are del and A both in spherical coords?this very old fashioned notation is just to me a clumsy way of obscuring the quite simple differential calculus as now used in terms of differential forms, and it is so out of date, i have never even seen it! (believe it or not.)

(i took elementary calculus out of loomis and sternberg and was never exposed to this old maxwellian version of vector calc notation, that originally arose using quatern ions, and has been outmoded in mathematics for over 50 years.)

but i agree it would be fun to see then turn out the same. but i am confident there is no difficuklty about this if we just make clear what the symbols mean.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Is [itex]\nabla \times A[/itex] not equal to [itex]({}^\star d(A^t))^t[/itex]?

(Where the transpose of a vector is the one-form you get by contracting with the metric, and conversely)
 
  • #34
come to think of it, we were being taught this clunky old stuff in physics class. i just never learned it.

are in three dimensions? anyway i promise you these are just primitive versions of d(fdx) = df^dx.
 
  • #35
why bring in a metric to compute an exterior derivative, when it does not depend on one?

you guys seem bound to make something simple look complicated.
 
<h2>1. Why is it important to use a specific form in scientific experiments?</h2><p>Using a specific form in scientific experiments ensures consistency and accuracy in data collection and analysis. It also allows for replication of the experiment by other scientists.</p><h2>2. What factors determine which form should be used in a research study?</h2><p>The type of data being collected, the research question, and the experimental design are all factors that determine which form should be used in a research study.</p><h2>3. How do scientists decide which form is appropriate for their study?</h2><p>Scientists consider the purpose of their study, the type of data they need to collect, and the limitations of each form when deciding which form is appropriate for their study.</p><h2>4. Can different forms be used interchangeably in scientific experiments?</h2><p>No, different forms cannot be used interchangeably in scientific experiments. Each form has its own unique purpose and limitations, and using the wrong form can lead to inaccurate results.</p><h2>5. Are there any ethical considerations when choosing a form for a scientific study?</h2><p>Yes, there are ethical considerations when choosing a form for a scientific study. Scientists must ensure that the form they use does not harm participants or violate their rights in any way.</p>

1. Why is it important to use a specific form in scientific experiments?

Using a specific form in scientific experiments ensures consistency and accuracy in data collection and analysis. It also allows for replication of the experiment by other scientists.

2. What factors determine which form should be used in a research study?

The type of data being collected, the research question, and the experimental design are all factors that determine which form should be used in a research study.

3. How do scientists decide which form is appropriate for their study?

Scientists consider the purpose of their study, the type of data they need to collect, and the limitations of each form when deciding which form is appropriate for their study.

4. Can different forms be used interchangeably in scientific experiments?

No, different forms cannot be used interchangeably in scientific experiments. Each form has its own unique purpose and limitations, and using the wrong form can lead to inaccurate results.

5. Are there any ethical considerations when choosing a form for a scientific study?

Yes, there are ethical considerations when choosing a form for a scientific study. Scientists must ensure that the form they use does not harm participants or violate their rights in any way.

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top