Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Covariant vs. contravariant time component

  1. Oct 4, 2008 #1
    ...of the four-momentum vector.

    Why is the energy of a particle identified with p0 instead of p0? Is there a theoretical basis for this, or was it simply observed that p0 is conserved in a larger set of circumstances?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 4, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    How is the metric written in that book (-+++) or (+---)?

    Covariant and contravariant components are related by the metric.

    Just make sure the energy is positive.
  4. Oct 4, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    In the more usual metric (+---) of SR, p^0 and p_0 are equal, so it doesn't matter which you use. In any event, although they are equal, it should be p^0 that is the physical energy since the four-momentum is a contravariant vector.
    If you are reading a book that uses the metric (-+++), then everything could be different.
  5. Oct 4, 2008 #4
    I did not have the Minkowski metric specifically in mind. If one uses the Schwarzschild metric -- or any other diagonal metric with [tex]|g_{00}|\neq1[/tex] -- p0 and p0 differ by more than just the sign; they have different magnitudes, so the energy of a particle cannot have both values. It's been my impression that in such circumstances one uses the covariant form instead of the contravariant form, but I don't know why.
  6. Oct 4, 2008 #5

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If one uses standard Schwarzschild coordinates, then

    [tex]k = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/tex]

    is a timelike Killing vector. If [itex]u[/itex] is the 4-velocity of a freely falling particle, then

    [tex]E = g \left( k , u \right)[/tex]

    is constant along the particle's worldline.

    What is the coordinate expression of the above coordinate-free expression?
  7. Oct 4, 2008 #6
    What I had in mind was

    [tex] p^0=m_0 c \frac{dt}{d\tau} [/tex] while [tex] p_0= g_{00}m_0 c \frac{dt}{d\tau}=(1-\frac{r_s}{r})m_0 c \frac{dt}{d\tau}[/tex]

    where [tex]d\tau=ds/c[/tex] and [tex]ds[/tex] is defined using the Schwarzschild metric. Since [tex](1-\frac{r_s}{r})[/tex] won't equal 1 while r is finite, these two terms (p0 and p0) have different values, and I don't know which one (if either) represents the energy of the particle.

    Regarding the coordinate-free expression, when you say that [tex]k = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/tex] is a vector, do you mean the partial derivative of the displacement vector with respect to coordinate time? or of a different vector?
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2008
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook