I GR: Can Units Tell You if Quantity is Covariant or Contravariant?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Twigg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr Units
Twigg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
893
Reaction score
483
Note: My GR is very cursory and rusty. The probability that I say something bogus in stating my question is very high. Thanks for your help in advance!

I have a dumb question. I'm only casually familiar with GR, and I have a hard time telling if quantities should be covariant or contravariant. Can I tell just by looking at the units? For example, I remember 4-velocity and 4-momentum are contravariant and both have units that include meters in the numerator (in the convention where (##x^0 = ct##). I remember that the 4-gradient ##\partial_{\mu}## is a covariant quantity and its units have meters in the denominator. Can I get away with using this trend as a mnemonic or will I get into trouble? If no, can you give counter-examples?

I know covariant vectors can be transformed into contravariant vectors via the metric, but when I'm doing a problem I need to know whether I should write ##X_{\mu} = (A,B,C,D)## or ##X_{\mu} = (-A,B,C,D)## given that I know the values of the components A,B,C,D. For instance, I know that I can write 4-momentum as a covariant vector ##P_{\mu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} P^{\nu}##, however when I'm doing a problem I have to know that P is naturally contravariant (in other words, ##P^{\mu} = (E/c, p_x, p_y, p_z)## and ##P_{\mu} = (-E/c, p_x, p_y, p_z)##, and not the other way around). Just to make sure, I'm not misunderstanding this, right?

Thanks for bearing with me, all!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Twigg said:
If no, can you give counter-examples?
Four velocity has dimensions of speed, and the metric is usually dimensionless. ##g_{ab}U^aU^b=U_bU^b## has dimensions of speed squared, so ##U_b## must have the same dimensions as ##U^a##.

I'm not sure of a good mnemonic for what's co/contra variant, but perhaps others can suggest something.
 
Oh yep, that's valid. I done goofed o:)
 
Just saw another one: the 4-wavevector is contravariant though it has units of radians per meter.
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top