Gradient in polar coords using tensors

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the gradient formula in polar coordinates using tensors, specifically in covariant and contravariant bases. The initial formula presented for the gradient in the covariant basis was incorrect, leading to confusion about the use of index manipulation. The correct gradient formula incorporates unit vectors, resulting in \vec{grad}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial r}]\hat{r}+\frac{1}{r}[\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta}]\hat{\vartheta}. The participant clarifies that the gradient should account for the metric tensor's influence on the basis vectors, leading to a revised expression that balances the indices correctly. The discussion highlights the importance of distinguishing between coordinate transformations and index manipulation in tensor calculus.
ohmymymymygod
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Using tensors, I'm supposed to find the usual formula for the gradient in the covariant basis and in polar coordinates. The formula is \vec{grad}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial r}]\vec{e_{r}}+\frac{1}{r}[\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta}]\vec{e_{\vartheta}} where \vec{e_{r}} and \vec{e_{\vartheta}} are the covariant basis vectors.

In the contravariant basis with \vec{e^{r}} and \vec{e^{\vartheta}} , we know that \vec{grad}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}] \vec{e^{i}}. But from index gymnastics, \vec{e^{i}}=g^{ij}\vec{e_{j}}. So \vec{grad}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}]g^{ij}\vec{e_{j}}.

In polar coordinates, the inverse metric tensor is g^{11} = 1, g^{12}=g^{21}=0, g^{22} = \frac{1}{r^{2}}.

So this gives \vec{grad}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial r}]\vec{e_{r}}+\frac{1}{r^{2}}[\frac{ \partial}{\partial \vartheta}]\vec{e_{\vartheta}}. And lo and behold, this is wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,
the gymnastics you are talking about allow you to raise or lower indices of a tensor, but in this case what you want to do is express the gradient in different coordinates which is a different matter.
 
I'm not using the raising/lowering indices operations to switch from rectangular to polar coordinates, I'm using them to switch, in polar coordinates, from a contravariant basis to a covariant basis.

Actually, I think I know what I got wrong. The correct formula is \vec{grad}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial r}]\hat{r}+\frac{1}{r}[\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta}]\hat{\vartheta}. The vectors \hat{r} and \hat{\vartheta} are unit vectors, while \vec{e_{r}} and \vec{e_{\vartheta}} aren't unit vectors. But I can write \vec{e_{j}}=\hat{u_{j}}||\vec{e_{j}}||=\hat{u_{j}}\sqrt{g_{jj}}, with \hat{u_{j}} a unit vector.

Then the formula for the gradient becomes \vec{grad}=[\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}]g^{ij}\sqrt{g_{jj}}\vec{u_{j}} which I think is more right. (The r factor in √g22 compensates the 1/r2 in g22 for the correct 1/r.) But the indices don't seem to balance out in the way they are supposed to in the Einstein notation...
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
560
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K