Contravariant derivative tensor problem

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 4K views
rafal_
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Tensor [tex]\left (<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1\\1 <br /> \end{array}<br /> \right )[/tex] is [tex]T=T^\alpha_\beta \omega^\beta \otimes \vec e_\alpha[/tex]Why is contravariant derivative tensor [tex]\left (\begin{array}{cc}1\\1 \end{array}<br /> \right )[/tex]
[tex]V^\alpha_{;\beta}\vec {e_\alpha}[/tex] - contravariant derivative
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I made a mistake I meant covariant. T is general tensor. I don't understand why
[tex]\frac{\partial \vec V}{\partial x^\beta}=V^\alpha_{;\beta} \vec e_{\alpha}[/tex]
can be associated with a (1,1) tensor
 
A covariant derivative is per definition a derivative which transforms as a tensor. Loosely, the covariant derivative of a tensor T adds another covariant index, so if T is type (k,l) then the covariant derivative of T is type (k+1, l) (I always forget the convention, but here the k is the number of covariant indices).

Here's a nice exercise: you know how the components of a vector V tranform:

[tex] V^{\mu'}(x') = \frac{\partial x^{\mu'}}{\partial x^{\nu}}V^{\nu}(x)[/tex]

You also know how a partial derivative transforms:

[tex] \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\lambda'}} = \frac{\partial x^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\lambda '}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\alpha}}[/tex]

Now calculate the transformation the components of the partial derivative of a vector:

[tex] \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\lambda'}}V^{\mu'}(x') = \frac{\partial x^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\lambda '}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\alpha}} [\frac{\partial x^{\mu'}}{\partial x^{\nu}}V^{\nu}(x)][/tex]

If you write this out, you'll see that this doesn't transform as a (1,1) tensor as you would naively expect on basis of the index structure of the expression. However, in derivatives you compare tensors at different points on the manifold and you need a certain prescription to perform this comparison: the connection [itex]\Gamma[/itex].

If you want to write things down with a basis, you can define the connection and the covariant derivative as

[tex] \nabla_{\mu}e_{\nu} \equiv \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}e_{\lambda}[/tex]

Here [itex]\nabla_{\mu}[/itex] means covariant derivation with respect to the basis vector

[tex]e_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu}[/tex]

This second-last formula states that the covariant derivative of the basis vector should be expressible in terms of your basis vectors. If you then write down a tensor in a certain coordinate basis, you can act on this tensor with the covariant derivative. For instance,

[tex] \nabla_{\mu} (V) = \nabla_{\mu}(V^{\alpha} e_{\alpha}) = [(\nabla_{\mu}V^{\alpha})e_{\alpha} + V^{\alpha}\nabla_{\mu}e_{\alpha}][/tex]

Demanding that the covariant derivative acting on scalar functions gives the same result as a partial derivative (and some basic rules such that it obeys Leibnitz), you arrive at the same answer as in a component-only treatment.

Hopefully this makes things a bit clear :)
 
I like the approach to covariant derivatives that starts with a connection. I'll quote myself (and fix a couple of mistakes at the same time):

Fredrik said:
Let V be the set of smooth vector fields on a manifold M. A connection is a map [itex]\nabla:V\times V\rightarrow V[/itex] such that

(i) [tex]\nabla_{fX+gY}Z=f\nabla_X Z+g\nabla_YZ[/tex]

(ii) [tex]\nabla_X(Y+Z)=\nabla_XY+\nabla_XZ[/tex]

(iii) [tex]\nabla_X(fY)=(Xf)Y+f\nabla_XY[/tex]

[itex]\nabla_XY[/itex] is the covariant derivative of Y in the direction of X. The covariant derivative operator corresponding to a coordinate system x is

[tex]\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}[/tex]

The notation is often simplified to

[tex]\nabla_{\partial_\mu}[/tex]

or just [itex]\nabla_\mu[/itex].
The above only defines the action of [itex]\nabla_X[/itex] on vector fields, but note that condition (iii) above suggests a way to extend the definition to scalar fields. If we define

[tex]\nabla_Xf=Xf[/tex]

condition (iii) looks like the Leibnitz rule for derivatives:

[tex]\nabla_X(fY)=(\nabla_Xf)Y+f\nabla_XY[/tex]

So we choose to define [itex]\nabla_Xf[/itex] that way. Can we do something similar for covector fields? It turns out we can. Suppose that [itex]\omega[/itex] is a covector field. The closest thing to a Leibnitz rule we can get is this:

[tex]\nabla_X(\omega(Y))=(\nabla_X\omega)(Y)+\omega(\nabla_XY)[/tex]

so we choose to define [itex]\nabla_X\omega[/itex] by

[tex](\nabla_X\omega)(Y)=\nabla_X(\omega(Y))-\omega(\nabla_XY)[/tex]

for all Y. Note that this means that we define [itex]\nabla_X\omega[/itex] to be a covector field.

The same idea can be used to find the appropriate definition of [itex]\nabla_X[/itex] acting on an arbitrary tensor field. You can probably figure it out on your own.

Don't forget that the covariant derivative you're used to is the special case [itex]X=\partial_\mu[/itex].