2
$\begingroup$

I know that a vector is invariant under coordinate transformation, that is:

$$\vec{v} = v^i e_i = \tilde{v}^i\tilde{e_i}$$

where here, I'm implying einstein's summation convention.

When I transform the gradient vector however, it does not follow that rule. For example:

$$\vec\nabla f = e_i g^{ij} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x^j} = e_r\frac{\partial f}{\partial r} + e_\theta\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta} \neq g^{rr}e_r\frac{\partial f}{\partial r} + g^{\theta \theta}e_\theta\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta}$$

Why is this? Is this because I'm not using the covariant derivative? I'm not well versed in using it but I suspect the problem is because the partial derivatives do not transform like a vector. In other words, is this correct for all my choice of basis?:

$$\vec \nabla f = e_i g^{ij}D_jf$$

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ people should understand that $\vec\nabla$ isn't a vector neither a covector: it is a operator $\endgroup$
    – janmarqz
    Commented Dec 21, 2022 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ $\vec\nabla f$ is a vector $\endgroup$
    – Habouz
    Commented Dec 21, 2022 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ No, it is a covector field $\endgroup$
    – janmarqz
    Commented Dec 21, 2022 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ You're treating $\vec \nabla f$ as a covector quantity even though it has no indices. What you're referring to as covector field is $\partial_i f$, at least for cartesian coordinates. $\endgroup$
    – Habouz
    Commented Dec 21, 2022 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ What I am suspecting is that the covector field is $D_i f$, which transforms as a covector. $\endgroup$
    – Habouz
    Commented Dec 21, 2022 at 16:41

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

$ \newcommand\R{\mathbb R} \newcommand\PD[2]{\frac{\partial#1}{\partial#2}} $You're using the wrong basis vectors; you have to use those that are directly associated with the coordinates.

We need to distinguish between points, vectors, and coordinates; let $M$ be our space of points, $V$ our space of vectors, and $C$ our space of coordinates. All of these happen to be modeled as $\R^n$, but that does not mean they are literally the same thing. If our manifold $M$ were not flat, then instead of $V$ we would need a tangent space $T_pM$ for each $p \in M$. A choice of coordinate space $C$ consists of two things: a point function $P : C \to M$ taking coordinates $(x^1,\dotsc,x^n)$ to the corresponding point $P(x^1,\dotsc, x^n)$, and coordinate functions $X^i : M \to C$ taking a point $p$ to its $i^{\text{th}}$ coordinate $X^i(p) = x^i$. These are inverses of each other: $$ P(X^1(p), \dotsc, X^n(p)) = p,\quad X^i(P(x^1,\dotsc, x^n)) = x^i. $$

The coordinate basis of $V$ is then defined as $$ e_i = \PD{P(x^1,\dotsc,x^n)}{x^i}. $$ Derivatives of $M$-valued functions are always valued in $V$. Note that $e_i$ is actually a function $C \to V$, but we will usually not write this coordinate dependence explicitly. Using the coordinate functions $X^i$, these can also be viewed as function $M \to V$.

If we also have a metric on $V$, in our case the usual dot product, then there is a reciprocal basis $e^i$ uniquely defined such that $e^i\cdot e_j = \delta^i_j$. Since $v\cdot\nabla$ ought to be the derivative in the $v$ direction, we see that $$ e_i\cdot\nabla X^j = \PD{X^j}{x^i} = \delta_i^j $$ so we must have $\nabla X^j = e^j$. This gives us the coordinate expression for $\nabla$: $$ \nabla = \sum_{i=1}^ne^i\PD{}{x^i}. $$

Now let's apply this to the specific case where $n = 2$, $M$ is modeled with Cartesian coordinates $C_{xy}$ so that $C_{xy} = M$, and we are interested in polar coordinates $C_{r\theta}$. The point function $P : C_{r\theta} \to M$ is $$ P(r, \theta) = (r\cos\theta, r\sin\theta), $$ and the coordinate functions $R : M \to C_{r\theta}$ and $\Theta : M \to C_{r\theta}$ are $$ R(x, y) = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2},\quad \Theta(x, y) = \arctan\frac yx. $$ (Or something like that, I am not being particularly careful.) The coordinate basis is $$ e_r = (\cos\theta)e_x + (\sin\theta)e_y,\quad e_\theta = -(r\sin\theta)e_x + (r\cos\theta)e_y. $$ Notice that $e_\theta$ is not a unit vector. If $\hat e_\theta = e_\theta/|e_\theta|$ then $$ \hat e_\theta = e_\theta/r = -(\sin\theta)e_x + (\cos\theta)e_y. $$ We can then compute the reciprocal basis to be $$ e^r = e_r,\quad e^\theta = e_\theta/r^2 = \hat e_\theta/r. $$ Hence the gradient expressed in polar coordinates is $$ \nabla = e^r\PD{}r + e^\theta\PD{}\theta = e_r\PD{}r + e_\theta\frac1{r^2}\PD{}\theta = e_r\PD{}r + \hat e_\theta\frac1r\PD{}\theta. $$


The short of it is: $\{e_r, \hat e_\theta\}$ is the wrong basis to transform; it needs to be $\{e_r, e_\theta\} = \{e_r, r\hat e_\theta\}$.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .