Covariant and Contravariant Transformation - Example of Polar Coordinates
$begingroup$
I would like to see the fact that the components of a vector transform differently (controvariant transformation) than the unit bases vectors (covariant transformation) for the specific case of cartesian to polar coordinate transformation.
The polar unit vectors $hat{r}$ and $hat{theta}$ can be expressed in terms of cartesian unit vectors, $hat{x}$ and $hat{y}$, as the following
begin{equation}
hat{r}= text{cos}phi hat{x} + text{sin}phi hat{y} \
hat{theta}= -text{sin}phi hat{x} + text{cos}phi hat{y} tag{1}
end{equation}
Any vector, $vec{V}$, can be expressed in the cartesian coordinate system as $vec{V}=V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}$. The same vector can be expressed in polar coordinates as $vec{V}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}$. We then have
begin{equation}
V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}. tag{2}
end{equation}
I then project both sides of (2) once onto $hat{r}$, and once onto $hat{theta}$. Using (1) and (2) we get
begin{equation}
V_r= text{cos}phi V_x+text{sin}phi V_y \
V_theta= -text{sin}phi V_x+text{cos}phi V_y tag{3}
end{equation}
Comparing (1) and (3), both the unit vectors and the components of a vector are transforming with the same rule, which is a contradiction! What am I missing here?
linear-algebra differential-geometry linear-transformations
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to see the fact that the components of a vector transform differently (controvariant transformation) than the unit bases vectors (covariant transformation) for the specific case of cartesian to polar coordinate transformation.
The polar unit vectors $hat{r}$ and $hat{theta}$ can be expressed in terms of cartesian unit vectors, $hat{x}$ and $hat{y}$, as the following
begin{equation}
hat{r}= text{cos}phi hat{x} + text{sin}phi hat{y} \
hat{theta}= -text{sin}phi hat{x} + text{cos}phi hat{y} tag{1}
end{equation}
Any vector, $vec{V}$, can be expressed in the cartesian coordinate system as $vec{V}=V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}$. The same vector can be expressed in polar coordinates as $vec{V}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}$. We then have
begin{equation}
V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}. tag{2}
end{equation}
I then project both sides of (2) once onto $hat{r}$, and once onto $hat{theta}$. Using (1) and (2) we get
begin{equation}
V_r= text{cos}phi V_x+text{sin}phi V_y \
V_theta= -text{sin}phi V_x+text{cos}phi V_y tag{3}
end{equation}
Comparing (1) and (3), both the unit vectors and the components of a vector are transforming with the same rule, which is a contradiction! What am I missing here?
linear-algebra differential-geometry linear-transformations
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not sure if this is helpful, but a similar question has been posted here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1068862/…
$endgroup$
– MathforFun
Apr 4 '18 at 16:11
$begingroup$
You're not missing anything. For an orthogonal matrix $A$, we have $(A^{-1})^top = A$, so it's going to be very difficult to see the difference.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 17:08
$begingroup$
@TedShifrin, I understand that $(A^{-1})^T=A$. However, if the transformation for the unit vectors, going from cartesian to polar coordinates, is $A$, don't you expect the matrix for the component transformation, again going from cartesian to polar system, to be $A^{-1}=A^T$?
$endgroup$
– DosGatos
Apr 4 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
No, a transpose comes in there, as well, essentially because of duality. Write it out carefully for a general transformation.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 18:15
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to see the fact that the components of a vector transform differently (controvariant transformation) than the unit bases vectors (covariant transformation) for the specific case of cartesian to polar coordinate transformation.
The polar unit vectors $hat{r}$ and $hat{theta}$ can be expressed in terms of cartesian unit vectors, $hat{x}$ and $hat{y}$, as the following
begin{equation}
hat{r}= text{cos}phi hat{x} + text{sin}phi hat{y} \
hat{theta}= -text{sin}phi hat{x} + text{cos}phi hat{y} tag{1}
end{equation}
Any vector, $vec{V}$, can be expressed in the cartesian coordinate system as $vec{V}=V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}$. The same vector can be expressed in polar coordinates as $vec{V}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}$. We then have
begin{equation}
V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}. tag{2}
end{equation}
I then project both sides of (2) once onto $hat{r}$, and once onto $hat{theta}$. Using (1) and (2) we get
begin{equation}
V_r= text{cos}phi V_x+text{sin}phi V_y \
V_theta= -text{sin}phi V_x+text{cos}phi V_y tag{3}
end{equation}
Comparing (1) and (3), both the unit vectors and the components of a vector are transforming with the same rule, which is a contradiction! What am I missing here?
linear-algebra differential-geometry linear-transformations
$endgroup$
I would like to see the fact that the components of a vector transform differently (controvariant transformation) than the unit bases vectors (covariant transformation) for the specific case of cartesian to polar coordinate transformation.
The polar unit vectors $hat{r}$ and $hat{theta}$ can be expressed in terms of cartesian unit vectors, $hat{x}$ and $hat{y}$, as the following
begin{equation}
hat{r}= text{cos}phi hat{x} + text{sin}phi hat{y} \
hat{theta}= -text{sin}phi hat{x} + text{cos}phi hat{y} tag{1}
end{equation}
Any vector, $vec{V}$, can be expressed in the cartesian coordinate system as $vec{V}=V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}$. The same vector can be expressed in polar coordinates as $vec{V}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}$. We then have
begin{equation}
V_x hat{x} + V_y hat{y}=V_r hat{r} + V_theta hat{theta}. tag{2}
end{equation}
I then project both sides of (2) once onto $hat{r}$, and once onto $hat{theta}$. Using (1) and (2) we get
begin{equation}
V_r= text{cos}phi V_x+text{sin}phi V_y \
V_theta= -text{sin}phi V_x+text{cos}phi V_y tag{3}
end{equation}
Comparing (1) and (3), both the unit vectors and the components of a vector are transforming with the same rule, which is a contradiction! What am I missing here?
linear-algebra differential-geometry linear-transformations
linear-algebra differential-geometry linear-transformations
asked Apr 4 '18 at 15:04
DosGatosDosGatos
1
1
$begingroup$
Not sure if this is helpful, but a similar question has been posted here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1068862/…
$endgroup$
– MathforFun
Apr 4 '18 at 16:11
$begingroup$
You're not missing anything. For an orthogonal matrix $A$, we have $(A^{-1})^top = A$, so it's going to be very difficult to see the difference.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 17:08
$begingroup$
@TedShifrin, I understand that $(A^{-1})^T=A$. However, if the transformation for the unit vectors, going from cartesian to polar coordinates, is $A$, don't you expect the matrix for the component transformation, again going from cartesian to polar system, to be $A^{-1}=A^T$?
$endgroup$
– DosGatos
Apr 4 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
No, a transpose comes in there, as well, essentially because of duality. Write it out carefully for a general transformation.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 18:15
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not sure if this is helpful, but a similar question has been posted here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1068862/…
$endgroup$
– MathforFun
Apr 4 '18 at 16:11
$begingroup$
You're not missing anything. For an orthogonal matrix $A$, we have $(A^{-1})^top = A$, so it's going to be very difficult to see the difference.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 17:08
$begingroup$
@TedShifrin, I understand that $(A^{-1})^T=A$. However, if the transformation for the unit vectors, going from cartesian to polar coordinates, is $A$, don't you expect the matrix for the component transformation, again going from cartesian to polar system, to be $A^{-1}=A^T$?
$endgroup$
– DosGatos
Apr 4 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
No, a transpose comes in there, as well, essentially because of duality. Write it out carefully for a general transformation.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 18:15
$begingroup$
Not sure if this is helpful, but a similar question has been posted here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1068862/…
$endgroup$
– MathforFun
Apr 4 '18 at 16:11
$begingroup$
Not sure if this is helpful, but a similar question has been posted here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1068862/…
$endgroup$
– MathforFun
Apr 4 '18 at 16:11
$begingroup$
You're not missing anything. For an orthogonal matrix $A$, we have $(A^{-1})^top = A$, so it's going to be very difficult to see the difference.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 17:08
$begingroup$
You're not missing anything. For an orthogonal matrix $A$, we have $(A^{-1})^top = A$, so it's going to be very difficult to see the difference.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 17:08
$begingroup$
@TedShifrin, I understand that $(A^{-1})^T=A$. However, if the transformation for the unit vectors, going from cartesian to polar coordinates, is $A$, don't you expect the matrix for the component transformation, again going from cartesian to polar system, to be $A^{-1}=A^T$?
$endgroup$
– DosGatos
Apr 4 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
@TedShifrin, I understand that $(A^{-1})^T=A$. However, if the transformation for the unit vectors, going from cartesian to polar coordinates, is $A$, don't you expect the matrix for the component transformation, again going from cartesian to polar system, to be $A^{-1}=A^T$?
$endgroup$
– DosGatos
Apr 4 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
No, a transpose comes in there, as well, essentially because of duality. Write it out carefully for a general transformation.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 18:15
$begingroup$
No, a transpose comes in there, as well, essentially because of duality. Write it out carefully for a general transformation.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 18:15
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As @TedShifrin pointed out, the correct transformation for the dual is $(A^{-1})^T$.
For instance, in special relativity contravariant vectors transform as
$ V^{mu '} = Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} V^{nu}$,
where $ Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} $ is the Lorentz transformation taking component from the unprimed frame to the primed frame. For covariant components we have to use the inverse of the Lorentz transformation:
$ V_{mu '} = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^{nu } _{,mu '} V_{nu}$.
If we assume that $V'$ and $V$ are column vectors representing, $ V_{mu '}$ and $V_{nu}$, respectively. Then in matrix format we have:
$ V' = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^T V$.
This can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Of course, one can get to the same conclusion in the context of group theory. If the vector $x$ transforms according to $x rightarrow x'=Ax$ where $A$ is the group member. Then the dual $tilde{x}$ transforms as $tilde{x} rightarrow tilde{x} '= big(A^{-1} big)^Ttilde{x}$ so that $tilde{x}^T x$ is an invariant in all frames.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2721992%2fcovariant-and-contravariant-transformation-example-of-polar-coordinates%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As @TedShifrin pointed out, the correct transformation for the dual is $(A^{-1})^T$.
For instance, in special relativity contravariant vectors transform as
$ V^{mu '} = Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} V^{nu}$,
where $ Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} $ is the Lorentz transformation taking component from the unprimed frame to the primed frame. For covariant components we have to use the inverse of the Lorentz transformation:
$ V_{mu '} = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^{nu } _{,mu '} V_{nu}$.
If we assume that $V'$ and $V$ are column vectors representing, $ V_{mu '}$ and $V_{nu}$, respectively. Then in matrix format we have:
$ V' = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^T V$.
This can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Of course, one can get to the same conclusion in the context of group theory. If the vector $x$ transforms according to $x rightarrow x'=Ax$ where $A$ is the group member. Then the dual $tilde{x}$ transforms as $tilde{x} rightarrow tilde{x} '= big(A^{-1} big)^Ttilde{x}$ so that $tilde{x}^T x$ is an invariant in all frames.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As @TedShifrin pointed out, the correct transformation for the dual is $(A^{-1})^T$.
For instance, in special relativity contravariant vectors transform as
$ V^{mu '} = Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} V^{nu}$,
where $ Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} $ is the Lorentz transformation taking component from the unprimed frame to the primed frame. For covariant components we have to use the inverse of the Lorentz transformation:
$ V_{mu '} = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^{nu } _{,mu '} V_{nu}$.
If we assume that $V'$ and $V$ are column vectors representing, $ V_{mu '}$ and $V_{nu}$, respectively. Then in matrix format we have:
$ V' = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^T V$.
This can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Of course, one can get to the same conclusion in the context of group theory. If the vector $x$ transforms according to $x rightarrow x'=Ax$ where $A$ is the group member. Then the dual $tilde{x}$ transforms as $tilde{x} rightarrow tilde{x} '= big(A^{-1} big)^Ttilde{x}$ so that $tilde{x}^T x$ is an invariant in all frames.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As @TedShifrin pointed out, the correct transformation for the dual is $(A^{-1})^T$.
For instance, in special relativity contravariant vectors transform as
$ V^{mu '} = Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} V^{nu}$,
where $ Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} $ is the Lorentz transformation taking component from the unprimed frame to the primed frame. For covariant components we have to use the inverse of the Lorentz transformation:
$ V_{mu '} = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^{nu } _{,mu '} V_{nu}$.
If we assume that $V'$ and $V$ are column vectors representing, $ V_{mu '}$ and $V_{nu}$, respectively. Then in matrix format we have:
$ V' = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^T V$.
This can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Of course, one can get to the same conclusion in the context of group theory. If the vector $x$ transforms according to $x rightarrow x'=Ax$ where $A$ is the group member. Then the dual $tilde{x}$ transforms as $tilde{x} rightarrow tilde{x} '= big(A^{-1} big)^Ttilde{x}$ so that $tilde{x}^T x$ is an invariant in all frames.
$endgroup$
As @TedShifrin pointed out, the correct transformation for the dual is $(A^{-1})^T$.
For instance, in special relativity contravariant vectors transform as
$ V^{mu '} = Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} V^{nu}$,
where $ Lambda ^{mu '} _{,nu} $ is the Lorentz transformation taking component from the unprimed frame to the primed frame. For covariant components we have to use the inverse of the Lorentz transformation:
$ V_{mu '} = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^{nu } _{,mu '} V_{nu}$.
If we assume that $V'$ and $V$ are column vectors representing, $ V_{mu '}$ and $V_{nu}$, respectively. Then in matrix format we have:
$ V' = big( Lambda^{-1} big)^T V$.
This can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Of course, one can get to the same conclusion in the context of group theory. If the vector $x$ transforms according to $x rightarrow x'=Ax$ where $A$ is the group member. Then the dual $tilde{x}$ transforms as $tilde{x} rightarrow tilde{x} '= big(A^{-1} big)^Ttilde{x}$ so that $tilde{x}^T x$ is an invariant in all frames.
answered Jan 2 at 2:27
DosGatosDosGatos
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2721992%2fcovariant-and-contravariant-transformation-example-of-polar-coordinates%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Not sure if this is helpful, but a similar question has been posted here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1068862/…
$endgroup$
– MathforFun
Apr 4 '18 at 16:11
$begingroup$
You're not missing anything. For an orthogonal matrix $A$, we have $(A^{-1})^top = A$, so it's going to be very difficult to see the difference.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 17:08
$begingroup$
@TedShifrin, I understand that $(A^{-1})^T=A$. However, if the transformation for the unit vectors, going from cartesian to polar coordinates, is $A$, don't you expect the matrix for the component transformation, again going from cartesian to polar system, to be $A^{-1}=A^T$?
$endgroup$
– DosGatos
Apr 4 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
No, a transpose comes in there, as well, essentially because of duality. Write it out carefully for a general transformation.
$endgroup$
– Ted Shifrin
Apr 4 '18 at 18:15