Covariant and Contravariant components in Oblique System

AI Thread Summary
In the oblique coordinate system K', the components a and b of the position vector r' are identified as contravariant components, as they represent the magnitudes of vectors that combine to form r'. The basis vectors are defined such that \hat{e'}_{1} equals \hat{e}_{1}, while \hat{e'}_{2} is a linear combination of \hat{e}_{1} and \hat{e}_{2}. The transformation shows that substituting these components into r' yields the original position vector in the standard coordinate system. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity regarding tensor properties, suggesting that the professor may expect an explanation using Einstein notation for the transformation. Overall, a and b are confirmed as contravariant components based on their relationship to the basis vectors and the transformation properties.
tylerscott
Messages
28
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


9QuWu.png

In the oblique coordinate system K' defined in class the position vector r′ can be written as:
r'=a\hat{e'}_{1}+b\hat{e'}_{2}

Are a and b the covariant (perpendicular) or contravariant (parallel) components of r′? Why? Give an explanation based on vectors’ properties and another based on tensors’ properties.

Homework Equations


\hat{e'}_1=\hat{e}_1
\hat{e'}_2=e_1cos(\alpha )+e_2sin(\alpha )

{x'}_{1\perp}={x}_1
{x'}_{2\perp}=x_1cos(\alpha )+x_2sin(\alpha )

The Attempt at a Solution


My best effort is that a and b are the covariant components of r' since they are the perpendicular projects of r' onto the \hat{e'}_1 and \hat{e'}_2 basis vectors, so they're essentially equivalent to {x'}_{1\perp} and {x'}_{2\perp}. So I think this would be my vector solution for the problem, but I don't know exactly how to represent it. As for the an explanation based on the tensor's properties, I don't even know where to start...

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you used the perpendicular projections onto the axes with the basis vectors given, would you recover the point r? It doesn't look like that to me. You'd end up way out above and to the right.
 
Ah, I see. I have been struggling with this problem for the past couple days and think I have developed a rough proof:
a and b are contravariant components of r' since they both give the magnitude of the vectors that add to r'. We found that:
\hat{e'}_{1}=\hat{e}_{1}
\hat{e'}_{2}=\hat{e}_{1}cos(\alpha)+\hat{e}_{2}sin(\alpha)
And
x'_{1\parallel}=x_{1}-cot(\alpha)x_{2}
x'_{2\parallel}=x_{2}csc(\alpha)

Making the substitutions into r'=a\hat{e'}_{1}+b\hat{e'}_{2}:
r'=(x_{1}-cot(\alpha)x_{2}) \hat{e}_{1}+(x_{2}csc({\alpha}))(\hat{e}_{1}cos( \alpha)+\hat{e}_{2}sin(\alpha))
We get
r'={x}_{1}\hat{e}_{1}+{x}_{2}\hat{e}_{2}

So I think this is good for the vector explanation. Any advice for the tensor representation?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they should be contravariant components, but to be honest, when the question says "give an explanation based on the tensors' properties," I'm not even clear on which tensors are being talked about.
 
Maybe I'll have to present that to the professor. I thought that maybe she just wanted the same proof, but using Einstein notation for the matrices that make the transformation.
 
e1' and e2' are unit vectors along the coordinate directions of the primed coordinate system. e'1 is the partial derivative of the arbitrary position vector r with respect to x1' and e'2 is the partial derivative of the arbitrary position vector r with respect to x2', where I have used a more suggestive notation here for "parallel" x primes. Thus,

r = x1'e1' + x2'e2'

Therefore, a = x1' and b = x2'. These are the contravariant components.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top