Covariant and contravariant tensors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the purpose and significance of covariant and contravariant tensors in physics, exploring whether it is necessary to use both types or if one could suffice. Participants question the physical implications of mixed components and the rationale behind their usage in different contexts, including coordinate systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the necessity of distinguishing between covariant and contravariant tensors, suggesting that both serve similar functions and could potentially be interchangeable.
  • Others argue that in physics, the distinction is crucial as covariant and contravariant components represent different mathematical objects: directional arrows versus functions that operate on those arrows.
  • A participant notes that practical differences exist, such as the units of measurement for contravariant components (e.g., m/s) versus covariant components (e.g., J/m), indicating a functional distinction in applications.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of using different coordinate systems, such as polar coordinates, where the dimensions of components can vary significantly.
  • Some participants express confusion over the definitions of covariant and contravariant tensors, suggesting that the lack of clarity in definitions contributes to the debate.
  • There is a discussion about the physical significance of the units associated with covariant and contravariant components, with some participants seeking to understand why they typically contain different physical quantities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether it is necessary to use both covariant and contravariant tensors or if one could suffice. Multiple competing views remain regarding the definitions and implications of these concepts in physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the definitions of covariant and contravariant tensors may not be universally agreed upon, and the discussion reflects a mix of mathematical and physical perspectives that may lead to confusion.

dsaun777
Messages
296
Reaction score
39
Is there a purpose of using covariant or contravariant tensors other than convenience or ease in a particular coordinate system? Is it possible to just use one and stick to one? Also what is the meaning of mixed components used in physics , is there a physical significance in choosing one over the other? For instance when breaking down a vector into its component form you can use covariant basis and contravariant components and vice versa but why? Sorry if this question seems redundant but I'm just puzzled.

[Moderator's note: Moved from a mathematical forum. This is about physics. A mathematical answer would probably be a different one and might increase confusion rather than clarify it.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here is a mathematical answer: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-a-tensor/
but as mentioned, the physical answer is a different one, because in physics tensors are tools, whereas in mathematics they are just certain objects. As the covariant parts are isomorphic to a contravariant version of it, there is little difference mathematically, whereas it is important to distinguish them in physics.
 
fresh_42 said:
Here is a mathematical answer: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-a-tensor/
but as mentioned, the physical answer is a different one, because in physics tensors are tools, whereas in mathematics they are just certain objects. As the covariant parts are isomorphic to a contravariant version of it, there is little difference mathematically, whereas it is important to distinguish them in physics.
That is a nice brief generalization of what tensor can represent but it gives definitions based on undefined terms. Why even use contravariant and covariant tensors why not just stick to one, why are they mixed? There are no definitions of covariant and contravariant in your 'mathematical answer". I see that they are tools for physics but why have both. It seems like you show up to a job with two tape measures, one measuring meters and the other measuring feet. Both do the same operation. In terms of strictly theoretical physics can not we just disregard one?/
 
dsaun777 said:
There are no definitions of covariant and contravariant in your 'mathematical answer".
This is because it makes no mathematical sense. One part are ordinary vector spaces (contravariant), the other dual vector spaces (covariant). Physicists use it this way, the terms contravariant and covariant in mathematics are defined for functors and not for tensors. Furthermore a contravariant functor refers to the dual category, which is exactly the opposite of how physicists use it. So I avoided the terms as they belong mathematically in a different context, and physicists use them conversely than mathematicians do. This is a mess, and the reason why I said "mathematical answer". IIRC then large parts of the discussion beyond the article is about these contradictions.

Technically it makes a difference whether we consider a vector space ##V## or its dual space ##V^*##. They might be isomorphic, but one consists of directional arrows, the other one of functions which eat directional arrows. Hence physicists have to distinguish them carefully. E.g. a derivative can be both, the vector "slope at point" or the linear function "multiply by the slope factor", i.e.
$$
f(x)=x^2 \Longrightarrow f'(x) = \{\,(x,x^2);(1,2x)\,\}
$$
where we have a pair of point and attached direction, or
$$
f(x)=x^2 \Longrightarrow f' \, : \,x \longmapsto 2x
$$
where we have the function multiply by two.

It is still the same thing, the derivative of ##x^2##, but one is a vector at a point, the other the instruction how to apply the derivative. That's why co- and contravariant are distinguished in physics: do we mean the slope or how to apply the slope? Mathematically there is not much difference between ##2## and ##\text{ multiply by }2##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dsaun777
dsaun777 said:
It seems like you show up to a job with two tape measures, one measuring meters and the other measuring feet.
One practical difference is that in applications contravariant components are typically measured in metres per something (e.g. m/s) but covariant components are typically measured in somethings per metre (e.g. J/m).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dsaun777
DrGreg said:
One practical difference is that in applications contravariant components are typically measured in metres per something (e.g. m/s) but covariant components are typically measured in somethings per metre (e.g. J/m).
Careful though, this depends on the dimensions of your coordinates. If coordinates have different dinensions (such as for polar coordinates) so will the components.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrGreg
Orodruin said:
Careful though, this depends on the dimensions of your coordinates. If coordinates have different dinensions (such as for polar coordinates) so will the components.
That's a good point. The example I gave in post #5 was not a good one.

If you are using Cartesian coordinates with a Euclidean metric, it's difficult to notice the difference between contravariant and covariant (mathematically, there is a difference but the components look the same). But, for example, in 2D polar coordinates ##(r, \theta)## measured in ##(\text{metres}, \text{ radians})##, a typical contravariant vector's components might have units ##(\text{m/s}, \text{rad/s})##, and a typical covariant vector's components might have units ##(\text{J/m}, \text{J/rad})##.
 
DrGreg said:
One practical difference is that in applications contravariant components are typically measured in metres per something (e.g. m/s) but covariant components are typically measured in somethings per metre (e.g. J/m).
So the units of the covariant components usually contain mass or energy and the contravariant components contain velocities and their derivatives... Why?
 
dsaun777 said:
So the units of the covariant components usually contain mass or energy and the contravariant components contain velocities and their derivatives... Why?
Orodruin said:
Careful though, this depends on the dimensions of your coordinates. If coordinates have different dimensions (such as for polar coordinates) so will the components.
The covariant components are multilinear functions. What does a matrix entry for, say ##\varphi \, : \,\mathbb{R}\otimes \mathbb{R}\otimes \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}## has as units?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K