When I encounter the parity transformation in physics,I feel often it's not really clear what we are doing and I want to understand it in a more rigorous way, can you help me with that?(I want to see it from the point of view of tensors.)I always hear that the electric field changes it's sign, often denoted as
$$\vec{E}'(\vec{x}')=-\vec{E}(\vec{x})\tag{1}$$
I assume this means the following: there is a vector field $\vec{E}(\vec{r})$ in a euclidian vector-space, $\vec{r}$ is the position vector (both are independent of a coordiante system-> invariant tensors) and we have chosen a cartesian coordinate system, where the {x,y,z} coordinates are measured to be increasing in a certain direction, which gives rise to a local (covariant) basis in every point in space according to
$$\vec{e}_i(x,y,z)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}\vec{r}(x,y,z)\tag{2}$$
(This equation will of course also work in curvilienar coordinate systems, then the basis will change from one point to the other, whereas in affine coordinates like the cartesian they will be constant)
Now the parity transformation is done by what is usually denoted as (x,y,z) -> (-x,-y,-z). I think this means that we now create a second coordinate system, where the {x',y',z'} coordinates are measured as increasing in exactly the opposite direction compared to the unprimed system.This will cause the basis vectors (who are covariant vectors) of the primed system to point in the opposite direction in every point.Now we can decompose the invariant E-field vectors in every point with respect to either the unprimed or the primed basis and compare their contravariant components. And since for every vector $\vec{V}$ we have
$$\vec{V}=V^i \vec{e}_i=V'^i \vec{e}'_i\tag{3}$$
this means that the components have the relationship
$$E'^i=-E^i\tag{4}$$
(the co- and contravariant tensors transform the same way in this case)
My first question would be if this is what physicists mean when they do a parity transformation and say that the E-field changes it's sign? (I think in this case it would be true for any configuration of charges, but let's consider a point charge at the origin).
But then if we didn't start with a cartesian system but with spherical coordinates, and perform a parity transformation, eq. (4) is still supposed to hold (at least if I have understood correctly what wikipedia and other sources mean when they speak about the sign flip, so please correct me if I'm wrong), which implies, because of how (2) relates the coordinate lines to the basis vectors, that in the primed system, the radius is now measured to be increasing towards the origin, which is not true.(Or is it?)
My second question is: how do the coordinate lines of the spherical system look like (how do the primed axes compare to the unprimed?), after the parity transformation, and how can one say that the E-field changes its sign under parity transformation, without having to measure the radius as increasing towards the origin? I mean that r is zero at the origin but becomes negative as we go outward, because this is required to make the $\vec{e}_r$ vectors point to the origin according to (2).
(For a point charge, the only nonzero $E^i$ will be the componets of the $\vec{e}_r$ basis vectors so only the orientation of the radius coordinate matters, doesn't it?)
In the literature I only encounter the case that the angles of the spherical coordinate system are transformed under parity and not the radius and imo this would not result in a sign flip of the E-field.