There are many contradictions in literature on tensors and differential forms. Authors use the words coordinate-free and geometric. For example, the book Tensor Analysis and Elementary Differential Geometry for Physicists and Engineers say differential forms are coordinate free while tensors are dependendent on coordinate. But when you look at the wikipedia article on tensor calculus it says that tensors are coordinate free representation. Another, mention would be Kip Thornes Modern Classical Physics where he explains that he develops physics in a coordinate free way using tensors. Other authors say, we develop differential geometry in a geometric way. Or we develop physics in a geometric way. Is geometry synonymous with coordinate free? This is all very confusing. There are many more examples in the literature but I dont see a definitive answer. The further I look the contradictions between authors. I am looking for an authoritative textbook that I can learn from. What do you think about Chris Isham's Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists? Also, is it better to use tensors vs differential forms in theoretical physics?
Why do books on diff geometry suggest tensor calculus and differential forms are coord free, while others say tensors are coord dependent
differential-formsdifferential-geometrytensors
Related Solutions
Generally speaking if you have a tensor $T$ on a manifold, and if you have a collection (of usually coordinate) vector fields $e_1, \cdots, e_n$ the "index notation" for $T$ is (lets assume for a moment $T$ is bilinear):
$$T_{ij} = T(e_i,e_j)$$
meaning $T_{ij}$ is a real-valued function for all $i$, and $j$. $T_{ij}$ is defined wherever the vector fields $\{ e_i : i = 1,2,\cdots n\}$ are defined. On a manifold with a metric (meaning an inner product on every tangent space), it is typical to define
$$g_{ij} = \langle e_i, e_j \rangle$$
where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is the inner product on the tangent spaces.
If the tensor takes something other than two vectors as input, for example the Riemann curvature tensor is sometimes thought of as a bilinear function from the tangent space to the space of skew-adjoint linear transformations of that tangent space, i.e. at every point $p$ of the manifold it is bilinear $T_p N \oplus T_p N \to Hom(T_p N, T_p N)$ taking values in the skew-adjoint maps (with respect to the inner product). So given $e_i, e_j \in T_p N$, $R(e_i,e_j)$ is a linear functional on the tangent space, so you could express $R(e_i,e_j)(e_k)$ as a linear combination of vectors in the dual space $T^*_p N$. The standard basis vectors of the dual space (corresponding to the collection $\{e_i\}$) is typically denoted $e_1^*, \cdots, e_n^*$. So you write $R(e_i,e_j)(e_k) = \sum_l R^l_{ijk}e^*_l$, and call $R^l_{ijk}$ the Riemann tensor "in coordinates".
In case any of this is unfamiliar, $e^*_j(e_i) = 1$ only when $i=j$ and $e^*_j(e_i) = 0$ otherwise. Or "in coordinates" $e^*_j(e_i) = \delta_{ij}$.
I think many intro general relativity textbooks explain this fairly well nowadays. When I was an undergraduate I liked:
- A First Course in. General Relativity. Second Edition. Bernard F. Schutz.
I just want to point out that GA can be used to make covariant multivectors (or differential forms) on $\mathbb R^n$ without forcing a metric onto it. In other words, the distinction between vectors and covectors (or between $\mathbb R^n$ and its dual) can be maintained.
This is done with a pseudo-Euclidean space $\mathbb R^{n,n}$.
Take an orthonormal set of spacelike vectors $\{\sigma_i\}$ (which square to ${^+}1$) and timelike vectors $\{\tau_i\}$ (which square to ${^-}1$). Define null vectors
$$\Big\{\nu_i=\frac{\sigma_i+\tau_i}{\sqrt2}\Big\}$$
$$\Big\{\mu_i=\frac{\sigma_i-\tau_i}{\sqrt2}\Big\};$$
they're null because
$${\nu_i}^2=\frac{{\sigma_i}^2+2\sigma_i\cdot\tau_i+{\tau_i}^2}{2}=\frac{(1)+2(0)+({^-}1)}{2}=0$$
$${\mu_i}^2=\frac{{\sigma_i}^2-2\sigma_i\cdot\tau_i+{\tau_i}^2}{2}=\frac{(1)-2(0)+({^-}1)}{2}=0.$$
More generally,
$$\nu_i\cdot\nu_j=\frac{\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j+\sigma_i\cdot\tau_j+\tau_i\cdot\sigma_j+\tau_i\cdot\tau_j}{2}=\frac{(\delta_{i,j})+0+0+({^-}\delta_{i,j})}{2}=0$$
and
$$\mu_i\cdot\mu_j=0.$$
So the spaces spanned by $\{\nu_i\}$ or $\{\mu_i\}$ each have degenerate quadratic forms. But the dot product between them is non-degenerate:
$$\nu_i\cdot\mu_i=\frac{\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_i-\sigma_i\cdot\tau_i+\tau_i\cdot\sigma_i-\tau_i\cdot\tau_i}{2}=\frac{(1)-0+0-({^-}1)}{2}=1$$
$$\nu_i\cdot\mu_j=\frac{\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j-\sigma_i\cdot\tau_j+\tau_i\cdot\sigma_j-\tau_i\cdot\tau_j}{2}=\frac{(\delta_{i,j})-0+0-({^-}\delta_{i,j})}{2}=\delta_{i,j}$$
Of course, we could have just started with the definition that $\mu_i\cdot\nu_j=\delta_{i,j}=\nu_i\cdot\mu_j$, and $\nu_i\cdot\nu_j=0=\mu_i\cdot\mu_j$, instead of going through "spacetime".
The space $V$ will be generated by $\{\nu_i\}$, and its dual $V^*$ by $\{\mu_i=\nu^i\}$. You can take the dot product of something in $V^*$ with something in $V$, which will be a differential 1-form. You can make contravariant multivectors from wedge products of things in $V$, and covariant multivectors from wedge products of things in $V^*$.
You can also take the wedge product of something in $V^*$ with something in $V$.
$$\mu_i\wedge\nu_i=\frac{\sigma_i\wedge\sigma_i+\sigma_i\wedge\tau_i-\tau_i\wedge\sigma_i-\tau_i\wedge\tau_i}{2}=\frac{0+\sigma_i\tau_i-\tau_i\sigma_i-0}{2}=\sigma_i\wedge\tau_i$$
$$\mu_i\wedge\nu_j=\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j+\sigma_i\tau_j-\tau_i\sigma_j-\tau_i\tau_j}{2},\quad i\neq j$$
What does this mean? ...I suppose it could be a matrix (a mixed variance tensor)!
A matrix can be defined as a bivector:
$$M = \sum_{i,j} M^i\!_j\;\nu_i\wedge\mu_j = \sum_{i,j} M^i\!_j\;\nu_i\wedge\nu^j$$
where each $M^i_j$ is a scalar. Note that $(\nu_i\wedge\mu_j)\neq{^-}(\nu_j\wedge\mu_i)$, so $M$ is not necessarily antisymmetric. The corresponding linear function $f:V\to V$ is (with $\cdot$ the "fat dot product")
$$f(x) = M\cdot x = \frac{Mx-xM}{2}$$
$$= \sum_{i,j} M^i_j(\nu_i\wedge\mu_j)\cdot\sum_k x^k\nu_k$$
$$= \sum_{i,j,k} M^i_jx^k\frac{\nu_i\mu_j-\mu_j\nu_i}{2}\cdot\nu_k$$
$$= \sum_{i,j,k} M^i_jx^k\frac{(\nu_i\mu_j)\nu_k-\nu_k(\nu_i\mu_j)-(\mu_j\nu_i)\nu_k+\nu_k(\mu_j\nu_i)}{4}$$
(the $\nu$'s anticommute because their dot product is zero:)
$$= \sum_{i,j,k} M^i_jx^k\frac{\nu_i\mu_j\nu_k+\nu_i\nu_k\mu_j+\mu_j\nu_k\nu_i+\nu_k\mu_j\nu_i}{4}$$
$$= \sum_{i,j,k} M^i_jx^k\frac{\nu_i(\mu_j\nu_k+\nu_k\mu_j)+(\mu_j\nu_k+\nu_k\mu_j)\nu_i}{4}$$
$$= \sum_{i,j,k} M^i_jx^k\frac{\nu_i(\mu_j\cdot\nu_k)+(\mu_j\cdot\nu_k)\nu_i}{2}$$
$$= \sum_{i,j,k} M^i_jx^k\frac{\nu_i(\delta_{j,k})+(\delta_{j,k})\nu_i}{2}$$
$$= \sum_{i,j,k} M^i_jx^k\big(\delta_{j,k}\nu_i\big)$$
$$= \sum_{i,j} M^i_jx^j\nu_i$$
This agrees with the conventional definition of matrix multiplication.
In fact, it even works for non-square matrices; the above calculations work the same if the $\nu_i$'s on the left in $M$ are basis vectors for a different space. A bonus is that it also works for a non-degenerate quadratic form; the calculations don't rely on ${\mu_i}^2=0$, nor ${\nu_i}^2=0$, but only on $\nu_i$ being orthogonal to $\nu_k$, and $\mu_j$ being reciprocal to $\nu_k$. So you could instead have $\mu_j$ (the right factors in $M$) be in the same space as $\nu_k$ (the generators of $x$), and $\nu_i$ (the left factors in $M$) in a different space. A downside is that it won't map a non-degenerate space to itself.
I admit that this is worse than the standard matrix algebra; the dot product is not invertible, nor associative. Still, it's good to have this connection between the different algebras. And it's interesting to think of a matrix as a bivector that "rotates" a vector through the dual space and back to a different point in the original space (or a new space).
Speaking of matrix transformations, I should discuss the underlying principle for "contra/co variance": that the basis vectors may vary.
We want to be able to take any (invertible) linear transformation of the null space $V$, and expect that the opposite transformation applies to $V^*$. Arbitrary linear transformations of the external $\mathbb R^{n,n}$ will not preserve $V$; the transformed $\nu_i$ may not be null. It suffices to consider transformations that preserve the dot product on $\mathbb R^{n,n}$. One obvious type is the hyperbolic rotation
$$\sigma_1\mapsto\sigma_1\cosh\phi+\tau_1\sinh\phi={\sigma_1}'$$
$$\tau_1\mapsto\sigma_1\sinh\phi+\tau_1\cosh\phi={\tau_1}'$$
$$\sigma_2={\sigma_2}',\quad\sigma_3={\sigma_3}',\quad\cdots$$
$$\tau_2={\tau_2}',\quad\tau_3={\tau_3}',\quad\cdots$$
(or, more compactly, $x\mapsto\exp(-\sigma_1\tau_1\phi/2)x\exp(\sigma_1\tau_1\phi/2)$ ).
The induced transformation of the null vectors is
$${\nu_1}'=\frac{{\sigma_1}'+{\tau_1}'}{\sqrt2}=\exp(\phi)\nu_1$$
$${\mu_1}'=\frac{{\sigma_1}'-{\tau_1}'}{\sqrt2}=\exp(-\phi)\mu_1$$
$${\nu_2}'=\nu_2,\quad{\nu_3}'=\nu_3,\quad\cdots$$
$${\mu_2}'=\mu_2,\quad{\mu_3}'=\mu_3,\quad\cdots$$
The vector $\nu_1$ is multiplied by some positive number $e^\phi$, and the covector $\mu_1$ is divided by the same number. The dot product is still ${\mu_1}'\cdot{\nu_1}'=1$.
You can get a negative multiplier for $\nu_1$ simply by the inversion $\sigma_1\mapsto{^-}\sigma_1,\quad\tau_1\mapsto{^-}\tau_1$; this will also negate $\mu_1$. The result is that you can multiply $\nu_1$ by any non-zero Real number, and $\mu_1$ will be divided by the same number.
Of course, this only varies one basis vector in one direction. You could try to rotate the vectors, but a simple rotation in a $\sigma_i\sigma_j$ plane will mix $V$ and $V^*$ together. This problem is solved by an isoclinic rotation in $\sigma_i\sigma_j$ and $\tau_i\tau_j$, which causes the same rotation in $\nu_i\nu_j$ and $\mu_i\mu_j$ (while keeping them separate).
Combine these stretches, reflections, and rotations, and you can generate any invertible linear transformation on $V$, all while maintaining the degeneracy ${\nu_i}^2=0$ and the duality $\mu_i\cdot\nu_j=\delta_{i,j}$. This shows that $V$ and $V^*$ do have the correct "variance".
See also Hestenes' Tutorial, page 5 ("Quadratic forms vs contractions").
Best Answer
I cannot suggest any particular textbook because mathematical physics is quite far from my area of expertise, although I will confess a fondness for Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
But I will say that there does not exist any "authoritative textbook" in which all ambiguities of terminology and notation are erased and all terms and notations are used in manner that all physicists and mathematicians throughout the world will agree upon.
If you study a good book on mathematical physics then you'll learn that author's point of view on terminology and notation. But more importantly, you'll learn some math and physics. Then you'll have a solid foundation for further studies, and you'll be in a good position to navigate around the inevitable variations of terminology and notation that you will encounter in your further readings.