2
$\begingroup$

In special relativity, the coordenates of a event are in general written using a 4-vector: $$x^{\mu} = \binom{ct}{\textbf{x}}$$ where $\textbf{x} = (x,y,z)$ are the spacial coordenates. This is a contravariant vector, and its covariant representation is written as $$x_{\mu} = \binom{ct}{-\textbf{x}}.$$ However, I know that the contravariant and covariant vectors are defined by the way that their components transforms. If $A$ is contravariant and $B$ is covariant: $$A'^{\mu} = \frac{\partial x'^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}} A^{\nu}, \ \ \ \ B' _{\mu} = \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial x'^{\nu}} B_{\nu}.$$ Using this definition, how can I show that $x_{\mu}$ is in fact covariant?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $x^\mu$ only behaves like a vector if the coordinate transformations are Lorentz transforms (or more generally linear transformations). $\endgroup$ – jacob1729 May 24 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ If it eats covariant vectors (and spits out scalars),it's contravariant. If it eats contravariant vectors, it's covariant. $\endgroup$ – WillO May 24 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ The covariant vector should be a row vector. $\endgroup$ – Jon May 24 at 14:56
0
$\begingroup$

As a side issue, coordinates don't really act like vectors. Infinitesimal changes in the coordinates do. It makes a difference when spacetime isn't flat or when you use coordinates that aren't Minkowski. But this is not really relevant to your question.

Consider the coordinate transformation $(t,x)\mapsto(t',x')=(\alpha t,\alpha x)$, where $\alpha$ is a positive constant. This is a change of units. By comparing this with the rules for transforming vectors and covectors, you'll see that the pair of coordinates acts like a vector, not a covector.

If the metric was given by the line element $dt^2-dx^2$ in the original coordinates, then it's given by $\alpha^{-2}dt'^2-\alpha^{-2}dx'^2$ in the new coordinates. Then lowering an index gives the components $(\alpha^{-1}t',\alpha^{-1}x')$ for the covector in the primed coordinate system. You can now check that this behaves according to the rule for transforming covectors.

$\endgroup$

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.