Divergence in Spherical Coordinate System by Metric Tensor

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the divergence in spherical coordinate systems using metric tensors, highlighting discrepancies between personal calculations and established textbook results in electrodynamics. The confusion arises from the use of holonomic basis vectors versus normalized orthonormal basis vectors in standard Ricci calculus. The correct expression for divergence is derived by transforming vector components appropriately, leading to the conclusion that the divergence formula aligns with conventional forms when using normalized basis vectors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of spherical coordinate systems
  • Familiarity with metric tensors and their applications
  • Knowledge of covariant and contravariant components
  • Basic principles of vector calculus in electromagnetism
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the transformation of components in spherical coordinates
  • Learn about holonomic versus non-holonomic basis vectors
  • Explore the derivation of divergence in various coordinate systems
  • Investigate the implications of metric tensors in general relativity
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on electromagnetism and general relativity, as well as mathematicians dealing with differential geometry and tensor analysis.

Astrocyte
Messages
15
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
I want to get a familiar form of spherical coordinate system's divergence formula from the metric tensor.
Relevant Equations
metric tensor, covariant derivative
1620289371095.png

The result equation doesn't fit with the familiar divergence form that are usually used in electrodynamics.
I want to know the reason why I was wrong.
My professor says about transformation of components.
1620289527170.png

But I cannot close to answer by using this hint, because I don't have any idea about "x".
Even I'm confused whether covariant component is correct or contravariant one does.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: zuu
Physics news on Phys.org
In your setting all the three components of A have same dimension on L or not? In familiar case you showed their components have same dimension on L and distinction of covariant and contravariant components are not clear to me there.

For an instance a special case of ##\mathbf{A}=d\mathbf{r}## you may take
A_r=dr,A_\theta =d\theta,A_\phi=d\phi
A^r=dr,A^\theta =r^2 d\theta,A^\phi=r^2 \sin^2\theta\ d\phi
In familiar vector analysis vector components are somewhat between, i.e.
A_r=dr,A_\theta =r\ d\theta,A_\phi=r\ sin\theta \ d\phi
All the components have dimension of L. You see the coefficient ##r## differ between them.
 
Last edited:
The difference between your results and the ones usually found in textbooks on electrodynamics simply is that in the above calculuation you use the holonomic (in this case orthogonal) basis vectors, while in the textbooks they use the corresponding normalized (i.e., orthonormal) basis vectors (3-beins).

It's easier to see calculating the vectors explicitly in terms Carstesian components:
$$\vec{x}=\begin{pmatrix} r \sin \vartheta \cos \varphi \\ r \sin \vartheta \sin \varphi \\ r \sin \vartheta \end{pmatrix}.$$
The holnomous basis is simply given as the partial derivatives wrt. the spherical coordinates,
$$\vec{b}_r = \partial_r \vec{x} = \begin{pmatrix} \sin \vartheta \cos \varphi \\ \sin \vartheta \sin \varphi \\ \sin \vartheta \end{pmatrix}.$$
$$\vec{b}_{\vartheta}=\partial_{\vartheta} \vec{x} = \begin{pmatrix} r \cos \vartheta \cos \varphi \\ r \sin \vartheta \sin \varphi \\ -r \cos \vartheta \end{pmatrix}.$$
$$\vec{b}_{\varphi} = \partial_{\varphi} \vec{x}= \begin{pmatrix} -r \sin \vartheta \sin \varphi \\ r \sin \vartheta \cos \varphi \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$
The vectors are orthogonal but not normalized. In your standard Ricci calculus these are the basis vectors you use.

In the E&M textbooks you usually use the corresponding normalized vectors. The norms are
$$|\vec{b}_r|=1=\sqrt{g_{rr}}, \quad |\vec{b}_{\vartheta}|=r=\sqrt{g_{\vartheta \vartheta}}, \quad |\vec{b}_{\varphi}|=r \sin \vartheta=\sqrt{g_{\varphi \varphi}}.$$

So your vector fields are decomposed as
$$\vec{A}=A^r \vec{b}_r + A^{\vartheta} \vec{b}_{\vartheta} + A^{\varphi} \vec{b}_{\varphi}.$$
In the textbooks it's
$$\vec{A}=\tilde{A}^r \vec{e}_r + \tilde{A}^{\vartheta} \vec{e}_{\vartheta} + \tilde{A}^{\varphi} \vec{e}_{\varphi}.$$
To get the "textbook expression" for the divergence you simply have to express the ##A_j## by the ##\tilde{A}_j##. That's easy: Just express the ##\vec{e}_j## with the ##\vec{b}_j##:
$$\vec{A}=\tilde{A}^r \vec{b}_r + \frac{\tilde{A}^{\vartheta}}{r} \vec{b}_{\vartheta} + \frac{\tilde{A}^{\varphi}}{r \sin \vartheta} \vec{b}_{\varphi}.$$
So you have
$$A^r=\tilde{A}^r, \quad A_{\vartheta}=\frac{\tilde{A}^{\vartheta}}{r}, \quad A^{\varphi}=\frac{\tilde{A}_{\varphi}}{r \sin \vartheta}.$$
In your expression you rather use the covariant components, i.e., using your covariant metric components,
$$A^r=A_r=\tilde{A}^r, \quad A_{\vartheta}=r^2 A^{\vartheta}=r \tilde{A}^{\vartheta}, \quad A_{\varphi}=r^2 \sin^2 \vartheta A^{\varphi}=r \sin \vartheta \tilde{A}^{\varphi}.$$

Plug this in your equation for the divergence, you get
$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}=\frac{1}{r^2}(r^2 \tilde{A}_r) + \frac{1}{r \sin \vartheta} \partial_{\vartheta}(\sin \vartheta \tilde{A}^{\vartheta}) + \frac{1}{r \sin \vartheta} \partial_{\varphi} \tilde{A}^{\varphi},$$
as it should be.

Also note that in the "textbook formalism" ##\tilde{A}^{j}=\tilde{A}_{j}##, because here your basis is orthonormal ("3-bein formalism") and thus ##\tilde{g}_{jk}=\delta_{jk}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak and etotheipi

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K