New answers tagged

0

This is not what I, and I would posit most physicists, understand as a physical treatment of what general covariance is in physics. General covariance is that the equations look the same in any coordinate frame - any meaning that the transformations can be any function. The only limitation is that the functions be differentiable, maybe n or infinite times (...


3

The development of general relativity has led to a lot of misconceptions about the significance of general covariance. It turns out that general covariance is a manifestation of a choice to represent a theory in terms of an underlying differentiable manifold. Basically, if you define a theory in terms of the geometric structures native to a differentiable ...


2

In the 'strict' sense, you should only apply the summation convention to a pair of indices if one is raised and another is lowered. For example, consider a vector $v$ and a dual vector $f$ (i.e. a map from vectors to numbers). Then one can compute $f(v)$, the number that results from $f$ acting on $v$. In components, this would be written as $f_i v^i$, ...


1

There is nothing wrong by summing up indices when both indices are either up or down. It is just a matter of convention. However the meanings can be different if you are in a Relativistic theory. When you sum one up and one down indices in Relativity it means you have a Lorentz invariant quantity because you are combining covariant and contravariant ...


1

Although like any other physics, the Lorentz force law is experimentally measured, one could easily imagine an alternative universe where the discovery of relativity came before electromagnetic theory (suppose Michelson-Morely lived before Faraday, or look at the Ignatowskian approach to special relativity, where the form of the Lorentz transformation is ...


0

I misunderstood what Menzel had intended by "covariant nature of the differential operator". He did not mean that the differential operation is synonymous with covariant differentiation. As Menzel is wont to do, he proceeded to expose a series of non-trivial equivalences, and then tacked on a final equivalence which does not obviously follow from the ...


0

I think your mistake is in assuming that there are other terms. The way I see it, your only vector quantity is $w$, $u_{c} \nabla^{c} $ for example is a sum/scalar and doesn't have any vector character or components, thus does not need to be expanded into base vectors.



Top 50 recent answers are included