I'm a mathematician (with little knowledge of differential geometry) trying to study physics. One of the greatest problems is the language regarding coordinate transformations. I tend to think of such transformations as functions (diffeomorphisms), whereas physicists just rename the arguments, e.g. $f(x,y,z)=f(\rho,\varphi,z)$.

I've gotten used to that and for some things (e.g. integration) it works just fine. But I can't get my head around the transformation (?) of differential operators. For example:

Let $f:\mathbb{R}^3\backslash\big(\{0\}\times\{0\}\times\mathbb{R}\big)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be smooth. I have before me the statement that "in cyclindrical coordinates" $$\nabla f=\vec{\mathbf{e}}_\rho\frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho}+\vec{\mathbf{e}}_\varphi\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial f}{\partial\varphi}+\vec{\mathbf{e}}_z\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}.$$

Now you probably consider me a pedant, but I can only try to understand that by introducing the mapping $\theta:]0,\infty[\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^3$, $$\theta(\rho,\varphi,z)=(\rho\cos\varphi,\rho\sin\varphi,z).$$

My understanding is that the above equation is actually $$\nabla(f\circ\theta)=\vec{\mathbf{e}}_\rho\partial_1(f\circ\theta)+\vec{\mathbf{e}}_\varphi\frac{1}{\rho}\partial_2(f\circ\theta)+\vec{\mathbf{e}}_z\partial_3(f\circ\theta).$$ Or is it $\left(\nabla f\right)\circ\theta$ instead of $\nabla(f\circ\theta)$?

And what are these vectors $\vec{\mathbf{e}}_\rho,\vec{\mathbf{e}}_\varphi,\vec{\mathbf{e}}_z$? I read that $\vec{\mathbf{e}}_\varphi$ is the "unit vector in $\varphi$-direction". But what does that even mean? How can one express these "unit vectors" using $\theta$?

There is a lot in the literature about how to derive such equations, but I can't really use it because I don't understand the meaning behind the symbols and I don't really understand the point of it all.

  • $\begingroup$ Well, for example, $\vec{e}_\rho = \vec{e}_x \rho \cos \varphi + \vec{e}_y \rho \sin \varphi$. (Yes, that means there is an implicit dependence on $\rho$ and $\varphi$.) $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jun 23 '16 at 11:59

$\newcommand{\Reals}{\mathbf{R}}\newcommand{\Basis}{\mathbf{e}}\newcommand{\dd}{\partial}$Your understanding is perfectly correct, and although it may be overly-careful for everyday use, it's a good idea to be certain what symbols mean! :)

(If you can find a library copy, Jan J. Koenderink's Solid Shape is a highly worthwhile if somewhat idiosyncratic read, a profoundly geometric introduction to differential geometry geared toward engineers and physicists, in the aesthetic spirit of Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen.)

If $x = (x_{1}, \dots, x_{n})$ is a coordinate system (which formally should be viewed as Cartesian, since "differential calculus looks the same in arbitrary coordinates"), the standard basis vector fields are viewed as partial differentiation operators, $$ \Basis_{j} \leftrightarrow \frac{\dd}{\dd x_{j}}, $$ via their action as directional derivatives on functions: $$ \Basis_{j}(x) f = \lim_{t \to 0} \frac{f(x + t\Basis_{j}) - f(x)}{t} = \frac{\dd f}{\dd x_{j}}(x) = \frac{\dd}{\dd x_{j}}(x) f. $$

Briefly, the issues in your question boil down to the chain rule, which enters as soon as you "compare" derivatives with respect to two different coordinate systems.

If $\theta:\Reals^{n} \to \Reals^{n}$ is a continuously-differentiable change of coordinates, and if we write $y = \theta(x)$, then in "classical" notation, $$ \frac{\dd}{\dd x_{j}} = \frac{\dd y_{1}}{\dd x_{j}}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd y_{1}} + \dots + \frac{\dd y_{n}}{\dd x_{j}}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd y_{n}}. \tag{1} $$

Particularly, if $$ (x, y, z) = \theta(\rho, \varphi, z) = (\rho\cos\varphi, \rho\sin\varphi, z), $$ then (pardon the use of $z$ in two conceptually-distinct but logically-identical (!) roles) \begin{alignat*}{3} \Basis_{\rho} &:= \frac{\dd}{\dd\rho} &&= \frac{\dd x}{\dd\rho}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd x} + \frac{\dd y}{\dd\rho}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd y} + \frac{\dd z}{\dd\rho}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd z} &&= \cos\varphi\, \Basis_{1} + \sin\varphi\, \Basis_{2}; \\ \Basis_{\varphi} &:= \frac{\dd}{\dd\varphi} &&= \frac{\dd x}{\dd\varphi}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd x} + \frac{\dd y}{\dd\varphi}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd y} + \frac{\dd z}{\dd\varphi}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd z} &&= -\rho\sin\varphi\, \Basis_{1} + \rho\cos\varphi\, \Basis_{2}; \\ \Basis_{z} &:= \frac{\dd}{\dd z} &&= \frac{\dd x}{\dd z}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd x} + \frac{\dd y}{\dd z}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd y} + \frac{\dd z}{\dd z}\, \frac{\dd}{\dd z} &&= \Basis_{3}. \end{alignat*} To express the Cartesian frame $(\Basis_{1}, \Basis_{2}, \Basis_{3})$ in terms of the cylindrical frame $(\Basis_{\rho}, \Basis_{\varphi}, \Basis_{z})$ , one either inverts the preceding system with linear algebra, or else (locally) inverts the change of coordinates $\theta$ itself, and computes the corresponding partial derivatives for (1). (The results agree by the chain rule.)

The "modern" viewpoint is that each coordinate domain ($U$ and $V$, say) is a smooth ($3$-)manifold, and each coordinate system defines a trivialization of the respective tangent bundle via its coordinate vectors. The coordinate change $\theta:U \to V$ induces an isomorphism $\theta_{*}:TU \to TV$, defined by $$ \theta_{*}(x, v) = \bigl(\theta(x), D\theta(x)(v)\bigr). $$ Consequently, there are two frames for $TV$: The "native" coordinate frame in $V$ (the $\dd/\dd y_{i}$ in (1)), and the "transplanted" image of the coordinate frame from $U$ (the $\dd/\dd x_{j}$ in (1), which properly speaking are $\theta_{*}\dd/\dd x_{j}$). The chain rule expresses the latter as linear combinations of the former.

If your primary interest is computation, it's best to get comfortable with the classical (abuses of) notation. :)


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.