I Co- and Contravariance

deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
TL;DR Summary
What physical meaning does covariance and contravariance have?
Hi,
I am very confused about the mathematics related to special relativity.
I have understood, that a four-vector with an upper index has the form:
$$A^\mu = (A^0 , A^1, A^2, A^3)$$
where lowering the index would make the indices other than the ##0##th negative:
$$A_\mu = (A_0, -A^1, -A^2, -A^3)$$
In order to lower the index, we would need to multiply the four-vector with the Minkowski metric.

I understand, that the four vector ##x^\mu = (ct, x^1,x^2,x^3)## gives the temporal and spatial positions of an event.
What I don't understand is what "multiplying by the Minkowski metric" physically does to the four vector, and what the physical difference between ##x_0## and ##x^0## is. What physical difference does it make when the four-vector has a lower index or an upper index?

I am in general very confused about this, so any recommendation of a source on the mathematics of special relativity is very welcome
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is a very good question. In fact, many (many!) students are confused by this. In fact, it is such a good question I might just take the time to write up a PF Insight on the topic …

In the meantime, know that you are not alone and that it is very confusing. It will be somewhat clearer if you go to curvilinear coordinates or curved spacetimes (ie, GR) as there the distinction between the tangent space and its dual is clearer.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis, fresh_42 and martinbn
Orodruin said:
That is a very good question. In fact, many (many!) students are confused by this. In fact, it is such a good question I might just take the time to write up a PF Insight on the topic …

In the meantime, know that you are not alone and that it is very confusing. It will be somewhat clearer if you go to curvilinear coordinates or curved spacetimes (ie, GR) as there the distinction between the tangent space and its dual is clearer.
In case you write that Insight, can you please also explain what makes the d'Alembert operator "relativistic" and different from the classical ##\frac 1 c \frac {\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-\Delta## that we have in the "classical" wave equation?..
 
deuteron said:
TL;DR Summary: What physical meaning does covariance and contravariance have?

Hi,
I am very confused about the mathematics related to special relativity.
I have understood, that a four-vector with an upper index has the form:
$$A^\mu = (A^0 , A^1, A^2, A^3)$$
where lowering the index would make the indices other than the ##0##th negative:
$$A_\mu = (A_0, -A^1, -A^2, -A^3)$$
In order to lower the index, we would need to multiply the four-vector with the Minkowski metric.

I understand, that the four vector ##x^\mu = (ct, x^1,x^2,x^3)## gives the temporal and spatial positions of an event.
What I don't understand is what "multiplying by the Minkowski metric" physically does to the four vector, and what the physical difference between ##x_0## and ##x^0## is. What physical difference does it make when the four-vector has a lower index or an upper index?

I am in general very confused about this, so any recommendation of a source on the mathematics of special relativity is very welcome

It's rather like the difference between a row vector and a column vector in matrix notation, if that helps any. Graphically, vectors, represented with a superscript like ##A^i##, are usually represented as little arrows. co-vectors, represented with a subscript, like ##A_i##, are usually represented by a "stack of parallel plates". A co-vector maps a vector to a scalar, in the graphical representation this is the number of parallel plates the line with the arrow pierces.

As long as you have a metric tensor, you can convert vectors to co-vectors, the metric tensor maps vectors to co-vectors as you mentioned, and the inverse of the metric tensor, ##g^{uv}##, maps co-vectors to vectors. In matrix notation, there is no metric tensor, the operation of taking the transpose makes a vector a co-vector and vica-vera.

I would say it's largely mathematical question rather than a physical one, though there are some standardized conventions as to which one is used in which circumstance.

If the stack-of-plates notion isn't familiar, https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1078427/how-to-visualize-1-forms-and-p-forms has some illustrations.

Mathematically a co-vector, or "one-form", is a linear map from a vector to a scalar. The relation between vectors and co-vectors is known as duality - each is the "dual" of the other.
 
Ben Crowell (former mentor here) noted that the concept is similar to frequency and period. Both encode the same information but in different ways, and if you change coordinates (e.g. change from measuring time in seconds to minutes) they change in opposite directions. And the product of the two is invariant under coordinate change.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy, Nugatory, Sagittarius A-Star and 2 others
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top