Modern General Relativity Black Holes

Gravitational Waves And Cosmology Instructor Res

N 2 Of 3 Lectures 1st Edition Mike Guidry
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/modern-general-relativity-black-
holes-gravitational-waves-and-cosmology-instructor-
res-n-2-of-3-lectures-1st-edition-mike-guidry-48718678

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity 1st Edition Thomas

Thiemann

https://ebookbell.com/product/modern-canonical-quantum-general-
relativity-1st-edition-thomas-thiemann-906290

Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity Thiemann T

https://ebookbell.com/product/modern-canonical-quantum-general-
relativity-thiemann-t-2048144

Einsteins General Theory Of Relativity With Modern Applications In

Cosmology 1st Edition Yvind Grn

https://ebookbell.com/product/einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-
with-modern-applications-in-cosmology-1st-edition-yvind-grn-2126768

Sas Ultimate Guide To Combat How To Fight And Survive In Modern

Warfare General Military 1st Robert Stirling

https://ebookbell.com/product/sas-ultimate-guide-to-combat-how-to-
fight-and-survive-in-modern-warfare-general-military-1st-robert-
stirling-53853210
Modern Snipers Osprey General Military Leigh Neville

https://ebookbell.com/product/modern-snipers-osprey-general-military-
leigh-neville-5683094

Modern Science A General Introduction J Arthur Thomson

https://ebookbell.com/product/modern-science-a-general-introduction-j-
arthur-thomson-49445824

The Creation Of The Modern German Army General Walther Reinhardt And
The Weimar Republic 19141930 1st Edition William Mulligan

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-creation-of-the-modern-german-army-
general-walther-reinhardt-and-the-weimar-republic-19141930-1st-
edition-william-mulligan-51695724

Modern Chinese Complex Sentences Iv General Review 1st Edition Fuyi

https://ebookbell.com/product/modern-chinese-complex-sentences-iv-
general-review-1st-edition-fuyi-55621582

Waging Modern War Bosnia Kosovo And The Future Of Combat 1st General
Wesley K Clark

https://ebookbell.com/product/waging-modern-war-bosnia-kosovo-and-the-
future-of-combat-1st-general-wesley-k-clark-5546218
 Modern General Relativity Lecture Notes
Mike Guidry

This document summarizes the first edition of Modern General Relativity:

Black Holes, Gravitational Waves, and Cosmology by Mike Guidry (Cam-
bridge University Press, 2019) in a format suitable for presentation. Sources
and references for the material contained here may be found in that book.
Contents

I General Relativity 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Coordinate Systems and Transformations 7

2.1 Coordinate Systems in Euclidean Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4 Non-Euclidean Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.5 Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3 Tensors and Covariance 55

3.1 Spacetime Coordinates and Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2 Covariance and Tensor Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3 Tangent and Cotangent Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.4 Coordinates in Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.5 Tensors and Coordinate Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.6 Tensors as Linear Maps to Real Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.7 Tensors Specified by Transformation Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.8 Symmetric and Antisymmetric Tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.9 Summary of Algebraic Tensor Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.10 Tensor Calculus on Curved Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

1
2 CONTENTS

3.11 The Covariant Derivative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

3.12 Absolute Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.13 Lie Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.14 Invariant Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

4 Lorentz Covariance and Special Relativity 145

4.1 Minkowski Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4.2 Tensors in Minkowski Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.3 Lorentz Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
4.4 Light Cone Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4.5 Causal Structure of Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.6 Lorentz Transformations in Spacetime Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.7 Lorentz Covariance of Maxwell’s Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

5 Lorentz-Invariant Dynamics 201

5.1 Geometrized Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
5.2 Velocity and Momentum for Massive Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.3 Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
5.4 Principle of Extremal Proper Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.5 Light Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.6 Observers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.7 Isometries and Killing Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

6 The Principle of Equivalence 229

6.1 Inertial and Gravitational Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
6.2 Strong Equivalence Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
6.3 Deflection of Light in a Gravitational Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
6.4 The Gravitational Redshift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
6.5 Equivalence and Riemannian Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
6.6 Local Inertial Frames and Inertial Observers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
CONTENTS 3

6.7 Lightcones in Curved Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

6.8 The Road to General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

7 Curved Spacetime and General Covariance 249

7.1 Covariance and Poincaré Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7.2 Curved Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
7.3 Curved 2D Spaces and Gaussian Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
7.4 A Covariant Description of Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
7.5 Covariant Derivatives and Parallel Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
7.6 Gravity and Curved Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
7.7 The Local Inertial Coordinate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
7.8 The Affine Connection and the Metric Tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
7.9 Uniqueness of the Affine Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

8 The General Theory of Relativity 289

8.1 Weak Field Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
8.2 Recipe for Motion in a Gravitational Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
8.3 Towards a Covariant Theory of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
8.4 The Riemann Curvature Tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
8.5 Instrinsic and Extrinsic Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.6 The Einstein Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
8.7 Solving the Einstein equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

9 The Schwarzschild Spacetime 315

9.1 The Form of the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
9.2 Measuring Distance and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
9.3 Precession of Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
9.4 Radial Fall of a Test Particle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
9.5 Orbits for Light Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
9.6 Deflection of Light in a Gravitational Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
4 CONTENTS

9.7 Shapiro Time Delay of Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

9.8 Gyroscopes in Curved Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
9.9 Geodetic Precession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
9.10 Gyroscopes in Rotating Spacetimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

10 Neutron Stars and Pulsars 383

10.1 A Qualitative Picture of Neutron Stars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
10.2 The Oppenheimer–Volkov Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
10.3 Interpretation of the Mass Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
10.4 Pulsars and Tests of General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
10.5 Precision Tests of General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

II Black Holes 419

11 Spherical Black Holes 421

11.1 Schwarzschild Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
11.2 Lightcone Description of a Trip to a Black Hole . . . . . . . . . . . 431
11.3 Eddington–Finkelstein Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
11.4 Kruskal–Szekeres Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
11.5 Black Hole Theorems and Conjectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460

12 Quantum Black Holes 463

12.1 Geodesics and Quantum Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
12.2 Hawking Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466
12.3 Mass Emission Rates and Black Hole Temperature . . . . . . . . . 470
12.4 Miniature Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
12.5 Black Hole Thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
12.6 The Four Laws of Black Hole Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
12.7 Gravity and Quantum Mechanics: the Planck Scale . . . . . . . . . 483
CONTENTS 5

12.8 Black Holes and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

13 Rotating Black Holes 489

13.1 The Kerr Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
13.2 Orbits in the Kerr Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
13.3 Frame Dragging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
13.4 Extracting Rotational Energy from Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . 514

14 Observational Evidence for Black Holes 521

14.1 Gravitational Collapse and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
14.2 Singularity Theorems and Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
14.3 Observing Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
14.4 Black Hole Masses in X-ray Binaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
14.5 Supermassive Black Holes in the Cores of Galaxies . . . . . . . . . 547
14.6 Intermediate-Mass Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
14.7 Black Holes in the Early Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
14.8 Show Me an Event Horizon! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564
14.9 Summary: A Strong But Circumstantial Case . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

15 Black Holes as Central Engines 571

15.1 Black Holes as Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572
15.2 Accretion and Energy Release for Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
15.3 Maximum Energy Release in Spherical Accretion . . . . . . . . . . 575
15.4 Jets and Magnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
15.5 Relativistic Jets and Apparent Superluminal Velocities . . . . . . . 585
15.6 Quasars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
15.7 Active Galactic Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
15.8 The Unified Model of AGN and Quasars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
15.9 Gamma-Ray Bursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634
6 CONTENTS

III Cosmology 675

16 The Hubble Expansion 677

16.1 The Standard Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677
16.2 The Hubble Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689
16.3 Limitations of the Standard World Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709

17 Energy and Matter in the Universe 711

17.1 Expansion and Newtonian Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
17.2 The Critical Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
17.3 Cosmic Scale Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
17.4 Possible Expansion Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
17.5 Lookback Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
17.6 The Inadequacy of Dust Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
17.7 Evidence for Dark Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729
17.8 Baryonic and Non-Baryonic Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745
17.9 Baryonic Candidates for Dark Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748
17.10 Candidates for Non-Baryonic Dark Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750
17.11 Dark Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
17.12 Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754
17.13 Density Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755
17.14 The Deceleration Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
17.15 Problems with Newtonian Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765

18 Friedmann Cosmologies 767

18.1 The Cosmological Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768
18.2 Homogeneous and Isotropic 2D Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
18.3 Homogeneous and Isotropic 3D Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774
18.4 The Robertson–Walker Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
18.5 Comoving Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784
CONTENTS 7

18.6 Proper Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787

18.7 The Hubble Law and the RW Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791
18.8 Particle and Event Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792
18.9 The Einstein Equations for the RW Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
18.10 Resolution of Difficulties with Newtonian View . . . . . . . . . . . 815

19 Evolution of the Universe 817

19.1 Friedmann Cosmologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
19.2 Evolution and Scaling of Density Components . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
19.3 Flat, Single-Component Universes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
19.4 Full Solution of the Friedmann Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851

20 The Big Bang 881

20.1 Radiation and Matter Dominated Universes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
20.2 Evolution of the Early Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
20.3 Thermodynamics of the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
20.4 Nucleosynthesis and Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
20.5 The Cosmic Microwave Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
20.6 The Microwave Background Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
20.7 Anisotropies in the Microwave Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
20.8 The Origin of CMB Fluctuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936
20.9 Precision Measurement of Cosmology Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 956
20.10 Seeds for Structure Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
20.11 Summary: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Structure . . . . . . . . 966

21 Extending Classical Big Bang Theory 969

21.1 Successes of the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970
21.2 Problems with the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
21.3 Cosmic Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
21.4 The Origin of the Baryons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
8 CONTENTS

IV Gravitational Wave Astronomy 1001

22 Gravitational Waves 1003

22.1 Significance of Gravitational Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
22.2 Linearized Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
22.3 Weak Gravitational Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
22.4 Gravitational Waves versus Electromagnetic Waves . . . . . . . . . 1027
22.5 Response of Test Particles to Gravitational Waves . . . . . . . . . . 1032
22.6 Gravitational Wave Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040

23 Weak Sources of Gravitational Waves 1049

23.1 Production of Weak Gravitational Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
23.2 Gravitational Radiation from Binary Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065

24 Strong Sources of Gravitational Waves 1079

24.1 A Survey of Candidate Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
24.2 Multimessenger Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
24.3 The Gravitational Wave Event GW150914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
24.4 Testing General Relativity in Strong Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
24.5 A New Window on the Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
24.6 Gravitational Waves from Neutron Star Mergers . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
24.7 Gravitational Waves and Stellar Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1156

V General Relativity and Beyond 1171

25 Tests of General Relativity 1173

25.1 Alternative Theories of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1174
25.2 The Classical Tests of General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
25.3 The Modern Tests of General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1180
25.4 Strong-Field Tests of General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
CONTENTS 9

25.5 Cosmological Tests of General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194

26 Beyond Standard Models 1197

26.1 Supersymmetry and Dark Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1199
26.2 Vacuum Energy from Quantum Fluctuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207
26.3 Quantum Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217
10 CONTENTS
 Part I

General Relativity

1
Chapter 1

Introduction

General relativity is a theory of gravity that represents a radical

new view of space and time.

• It supercedes Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian grav-

ity.
• It reduces to those theories in the limit of velocities that
are small with respect to the speed of light c and gravita-
tional fields that are weak.
• It reduces to the theory of special relativity in the limit of
weak gravitational fields, or for sufficiently local regions
of spacetime in the presence of strong gravitational fields.

3
4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

General relativity revises fundamentally the very meaning of

space, time, and gravity:

• The effects of gravity no longer appear as a force but as

the motion of free particles constrained to move in the
straightest paths possible in a curved spacetime.
• That is, general relativity will identify the effects of grav-
ity as arising from curvature in spacetime itself on free
particles.

John Wheeler: mass tells space how to curve;

curved space tells matter how to move.

• Implied in the circularity of this statement is another ba-

sic feature ofgeneral relativity: it is a highly non-linear
theory:

Only when we know the curvature of space can

we know the distribution and motion of matter, but
the curvature of space is only understood when we
know the distribution and motion of the matter.
 5

As a result of the non-linear nature of general relativity and

its formulation on a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold, it is
difficult to find exact solutions and only a few of clear physical
significance are known.

• In the general case one must solve the resulting non-linear

equations numerically (numerical relativity).
• However, we shall see that the simplest known solutions
of general relativity may be formulated in remarkably
transparent and elegant mathematical terms because of
symmetries.
• These formulations may then be used to understand some
of the most intriguing aspects of the theory:

– black holes,
– quasars,
– gamma-ray bursts,
– dark matter,
– dark energy,
– the new cosmology
– gravitational waves.

These lecture notes are an attempt to come to grips with these

ideas at a level appropriate for an advanced undergraduate
physics major.
6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2

Coordinate Systems and

Transformations

A physical system has a symmetry under some operation if the

system after the operation is observationally indistinguishable
from the system before the operation.

Example: A perfectly uniform sphere has a sym-

metry under rotation about any axis because after
the rotation the sphere looks the same as before the
rotation.

7
8 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

The theory of relativity may be viewed as a symmetry under

coordinate transformations.

• Two observers, referencing their measurements of the

same physical phenomena to two different coordinate sys-
tems should deduce the same laws of physics from their
observations.
• In special relativity one requires a symmetry under only
a subset of possible coordinate transformations (those be-
tween systems that are not accelerated with respect to each
other).
• General relativity requires that the laws of physics be in-
variant under the most general coordinate transformations.

To understand general relativity we must begin

by examining the transformations that are possible
between different coordinate systems.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 9

2.1 Coordinate Systems in Euclidean Space

Our goal is to describe transformations between coordinates in

a general curved space having

• three space-like coordinates and

• one timelike coordinate.

However, to introduce these concepts we shall begin with the

simpler and more familiar case of vector fields defined in three-
dimensional euclidean space.

• Assume a three-dimensional euclidean (flat) space having

a cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z), and an associated
set of mutually orthogonal unit vectors (ii, j , k ) .
• Assume that there is an alternative coordinate system
(u, v, w), not necessarily cartesian, with the (x, y, z) coor-
dinates related to the (u, v, w) coordinates by

x = x(u, v, w) y = y(u, v, w) z = z(u, v, w),

• Assume that the transformation is invertible so that we can

solve for (u, v, w) in terms of (x, y, z).
10 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

Example 2.1
Take the (u, v, w) system to be the spherical coordinates (r, θ , ϕ ), in
which case

x = x(u, v, w) y = y(u, v, w) z = z(u, v, w),

takes the familiar form

x = r sin θ cos ϕ y = r sin θ sin ϕ z = r cos θ ,

with the ranges of values r ≥ 0 and 0 ≤ θ ≤ π and 0 ≤ ϕ ≤ 2π .

2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 11

• The equations

x = x(u, v, w) y = y(u, v, w) z = z(u, v, w),

can be combined into a vector equation that gives a posi-

tion vector r for a point in the space in terms of the (u, v, w)
coordinates:

r = x(u, v, w) i + y(u, v, w) j + z(u, v, w) k .

• For example, in terms of the spherical coordinates

(r, θ , ϕ ),

r = (r sin θ cos ϕ ) i + (r sin θ sin ϕ ) j + (r cos θ ) k .

• The second coordinate system in these examples gener-

ally is not cartesian but the space is still assumed to be
euclidean.
• In transforming from the (x, y, z) coordinates to the
(r, θ , ϕ ) coordinates, we are just using a different scheme
to label points in a flat space.
• This distinction is important because shortly we shall con-
sider general coordinate transformations in spaces that
may not obey euclidean geometry (curved spaces).
12 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

2.1.1 Basis Vectors

At any point P(u0 , v0 , w0 ) defined for specified coordinates

(u0 , v0 , w0 ), three surfaces pass. They are defined by u = u0,
v = v0 , and w = w0, respectively.

• Any two of these surfaces meet in curves.

• From

r = x(u, v, w) i + y(u, v, w) j + z(u, v, w) k .

we may obtain general parametric equations for coordi-
nate surfaces or curves by setting one or two of the vari-
ables (u, v, w) equal to constants.
• For example, if we set v and w to constant values, v = v0
and w = w0 , we obtain a parametric equation for a curve
given by the intersection of v = v0 and w = w0 ,

r (u) = x(u, v0 , w0 ) i + y(u, v0, w0 ) j + z(u, v0, w0 ) k ,

• This is a parametric equation in which u plays the role

of a coordinate along the curve defined by the constraints
v = v0 and w = w0.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 13
(a) 3D space (b) 3D space
parameterized parameterized
by (x, y, z) 1D surface defined by by (r, θ, φ)
intersection of θ = constant ,
z = z0 and x = x0 z
r = constant curve
2D surfaces
2D surface z φ
defined
by z = z0
P
θ = constant
P (x0, y0, z0)
(cone)
y x
x
φ = constant
y (half-plane)

y 2D surface
defined r = constant
by x = x0 (sphere)

Figure 2.1: Examples of surfaces and curves arising from constraints. (a) In
3D euclidean space parameterized by cartesian coordinates (x, y, z), the con-
straints x = x0 and z = z0 define 2D planes and the intersection of these
planes defines a 1D surface parameterized by the variable y. (b) In 3D space
described in spherical coordinates (r, θ , ϕ ), the constraint r = constant de-
fines a 2D sphere, the constraint θ = constant defines a cone, and the con-
straint ϕ = constant defines a half-plane. The intersection of any two of
these surfaces defines a curve parameterized by the variable not being held
constant.

Fig. 2.1(b) illustrates for spherical coordinates (r, θ , ϕ ):

• The surface corresponding to r = constant is a sphere pa-
rameterized by the variables θ and ϕ .
• The constraint θ = constant corresponds to a cone param-
eterized by the variables r and ϕ .
• Setting both r and θ to constants defines a curve that is the
intersection of the sphere and the cone, which is parame-
terized by the variable ϕ .
14 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

• Partial differentiation of

r = x(u, v, w) i + y(u, v, w) j + z(u, v, w) k ,

with respect to u, v, and w, respectively, gives tangents to

the coordinate curves passing though the point P.
• These may be used to define a set of basis vectors ei
through
∂r ∂r ∂r
eu ≡ ev ≡ ew ≡ ,
∂u ∂v ∂w

with all partial derivatives evaluated at the point P =

(u0 , v0 , w0 ).
• This basis, generated by the tangents to the coordinate
curves, is sometimes termed the natural basis. The fol-
lowing example illustrates for a spherical coordinate sys-
tem.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 15

Example 2.2
Consider the spherical coordinate system defined through

x = r sin θ cos ϕ y = r sin θ sin ϕ z = r cos θ .

The position vector r is

r = (r sin θ cos ϕ ) i + (r sin θ sin ϕ ) j + (r cos θ ) k ,

and the natural basis is obtained from

∂r
e1 ≡ er = = (sin θ cos ϕ ) i + (sin θ sin ϕ ) j + (cos θ ) k
∂r
∂r
e2 ≡ eθ = = (r cos θ cos ϕ ) i + (r cos θ sin ϕ ) j − (r sin θ ) k
∂θ
∂r
e3 ≡ eϕ = = −(r sin θ sin ϕ ) i + (r sin θ cos ϕ ) j .
∂ϕ
These basis vectors are mutually orthogonal because

e 1 ·ee2 = e 2 ·ee3 = e 3 ·ee 1 = 0

For example,

e 1 ·ee2 = r sin θ cos θ cos2 ϕ + r sin θ cos θ sin2 ϕ − r cos θ sin θ

= r sin θ cos θ (cos2 ϕ + sin2 ϕ ) −r cos θ sin θ = 0.
| {z }
=1
16 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

From the scalar products of the basis vectors with themselves, their
lengths are

|ee1 | = 1 |ee2 | = r |ee3 | = r sin θ

and we can use these to define a normalized basis,

e1
êe1 ≡ = (sin θ cos ϕ ) i + (sin θ sin ϕ ) j + (cos θ ) k
|ee1 |
e2
êe2 ≡ = (cos θ cos ϕ ) i + (cos θ sin ϕ ) j − (sin θ ) k
|ee2 |
e3
êe3 ≡ = −(sin ϕ ) i + (cos ϕ ) j .
|ee3 |
These basis vectors are now

• mutually orthogonal and

• of unit length.

They are illustrated in the following figure.

2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 17

φ = constant
θ = constant , z
half-plane
r = constant curve
er

r = constant eφ
P
surface

eθ

x
φ

Figure 2.2: Basis vectors for the natural basis in spherical coordinates.

Figure 2.2 illustrates the geometry of the basis vectors derived

in the preceding example.
18 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

• In many applications it is usual to assume that the coordi-

nate system is orthogonal so that the basis vectors
∂r ∂r ∂r
eu ≡ ev ≡ ew ≡ ,
∂u ∂v ∂w

are mutually orthogonal, and to normalize these basis vec-

tors to unit length.
• In the more general applications that will interest us, the
natural basis defined by the partial derivatives in the pre-
ceding equation need not be orthogonal or normalized to
unit length

However, in the simple examples shown so far the

natural basis is in fact orthogonal.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 19

2.1.2 Dual Basis

It is also valid to construct a basis at P by using normals rather

than the tangents to the coordinate surfaces.

• We assume that

x = x(u, v, w) y = y(u, v, w) z = z(u, v, w),

is invertible so we may solve for

u = u(x, y, z) v = v(x, y, z) w = w(x, y, z),

• The gradients
∂u ∂u ∂u
∇u = i+ j+ k
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂v ∂v ∂v
∇v = i + j+ k
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂w ∂w ∂w
∇w = i+ j+ k
∂x ∂y ∂z
are normal to the three surfaces through P defined by u =
u0 , v = v0 , and w = w0 , respectively.
• Therefore, we may choose as an alternative to the natural
basis
∂r ∂r ∂r
eu ≡ ev ≡ ew ≡ ,
∂u ∂v ∂w
the basis

eu ≡ ∇u ev ≡ ∇v e w ≡ ∇ w.
20 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

• This basis (eeu, e v , e w ), defined in terms of normals, is said

to be the dual of the normal basis, defined in terms of
tangents.
• Notice that we have chosen to distinguish the basis

eu ≡ ∇u ev ≡ ∇v e w ≡ ∇ w.

from the basis

∂r ∂r ∂r
eu ≡ ev ≡ ew ≡ ,
∂u ∂v ∂w

by using superscript indices and subscript indices, respec-

tively.

These two bases are equally valid.

• For orthogonal coordinate systems the set of normals to
the planes corresponds to the set of tangents to the curves
in orientation, differing possibly only in length.
• If the basis vectors are normalized, the normal basis and
the dual basis for orthogonal coordinates are equivalent
and our preceding distinction is not significant.
• However, for non-orthogonal coordinate systems the two
bases generally are not equivalent and the distinction be-
tween upper and lower indices is relevant.
The following example illustrates.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 21

Example 2.3
Define a coordinate system (u, v, w) in terms of cartesian coordinates
(x, y, z) through

x = u+v y = u−v z = 2uv + w.

The position vector for a point r is then

r = x i + y j + z k = (u + v) i + (u − v) j + (2uv + w) k

The natural basis is

∂r
e1 ≡ eu = = i + j + 2vkk
∂u
∂r
e2 ≡ ev = = i − j + 2ukk
∂v
∂r
e3 ≡ ew = = k.
∂w
Solving the original equations for (u, v, w),

u = 12 (x + y) v = 21 (x − y) w = z − 21 (x2 − y2),

and thus the dual basis is

∂u ∂u ∂u
e1 ≡ eu = ∇u = i+ j + k = 12 (ii + j )
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂v ∂v ∂v
e2 ≡ ev = ∇ν = i+ j + k = 12 (ii − j )
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂w ∂w ∂w
e3 ≡ ew = ∇w = i+ j+ k = −(u + v) i + (u − v) j + k .
∂x ∂y ∂z
22 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

• What about orthogonality? We can check by taking scalar prod-

ucts. For example,

e 1 ·ee2 = (ii + j + 2vkk)·(ii − j + 2ukk )

= i2 − j 2 + 4uv = 4uv,

where the orthonormality of the basis (ii, j , k ) has been used. For
the natural basis we find in general

e 1 ·ee2 = 4uv e 2 ·ee3 = 2u e 3 ·ee1 = 2v.

Thus the normal basis is non-orthogonal.

• Taking the scalar products of the natural basis vectors with them-
selves gives

e 1 ·ee1 = 2 + 4v2 e 2 ·ee2 = 2 + 4u2 e 3 ·ee3 = 1,

so the natural basis is also not normalized to unit length.

• It is also clear from the above expressions that generally e i is
not parallel to e i , so in this non-orthogonal case we see that the
normal basis and the dual basis are distinct.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 23

The preceding example illustrates that for the general case of

coordinate systems that are not orthogonal,

eu ≡ ∇u ev ≡ ∇v ew ≡ ∇w (dual basis)

and
∂r ∂r ∂r
eu ≡ ev ≡ ew ≡ (natural basis)
∂u ∂v ∂w
define different but equally valid bases, and the placement of
indices in upper or lower positions is important.

• In general relativity we shall generally be

dealing with non-orthogonal coordinate sys-
tems.
• Hence the reader henceforth should assume
that the upper or lower placement of indices
in equations is significant.
24 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

2.1.3 Expansion of Vectors

An arbitrary vector V may be expanded in terms of the tangent

basis {eei } and an arbitrary dual vector ω may be expanded in
terms of the dual basis {eei }:
3
V = V 1 e1 +V 2 e2 +V 3 e3 = ∑ V i ei ≡ V i ei (natural basis)
i=1
3
e1 e2 e3
ω = ω1 e + ω2e + ω3e = ∑ ωi e i ≡ ωi e i (dual basis)
i=1
where we have introduced in the last step of each equation the
Einstein summation convention:

• An index appearing twice on one side of an equation, once

as a lower index and once as an upper index, implies a
summation on that index.
• The summation index is termed a dummy index; summa-
tion on a dummy index on one side of an equation implies
that it does not appear on the other side of the equation.
• If an index appears more than twice on the same side of
an equation, it probably indicates a mistake.
• Since the dummy (repeated) index is summed over, it does
not matter what the repeated index is, as long as it is not
equivalent to another index in the equation.

From this point onward, we shall usually assume

the Einstein summation convention.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 25

2.1.4 Scalar Product of Vectors and the Metric Tensor

• The upper-index coefficients V i of the basis vectors e i in

V =V 1e 1 +V 2e 2 +V 3e 3

are termed the components of the vector in the basis e i =

{ee1 , e 2, e 3 }.
• The lower-index coefficients ωi of the basis vectors e i in

ω =ω1e 1 + ω2e 2 + ω3e 3

are termed the components of the dual vector in the basis

e i = {ee1 , e 2, e 3 }.
• Remember: the components of vectors and of dual vec-
tors generally are distinct for non-orthogonal coordinate
systems.

However,

• The vector and dual vector spaces are related in a funda-

mental way.
• This permits vector components V i and dual vector com-
ponents ωi to be treated as if they were different compo-
nents of the same vector.

The first step in establishing this relationship is to introduce the

ideas of a scalar product and a metric.
26 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

2.1.5 Vector Scalar Product and the Metric Tensor

Utilizing the expansions in a vector basis:

• We can write the scalar product of two vectors A and B as

B = (Ai e i )·(B j e j ) = e i ·ee j Ai B j = gi j Ai B j ,

A ·B

where the metric tensor component gi j is defined by

gi j ≡ e i ·ee j .

• Likewise, for the scalar product of dual vectors α and β

α · β = αi e i · β j e j = gi j αi β j ,

where metric tensor components with upper indices are

gi j ≡ e i ·ee j ,
and the scalar product of dual vectors and vectors is

B = αi e i ·B j e j = gij αi B j ,
α ·B
where the metric tensor component with mixed indices is

gij ≡ e i ·ee j .

General properties of the metric tensor will be dis-

cussed below but first we use it to establish a re-
lationship called duality between vector and dual
vector spaces.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 27

2.1.6 Relationship of Vectors and Dual vectors

There is little practical difference between vectors and dual vec-

tors in euclidean space with cartesian coordinates.

• However, in a curved space the situation is more complex.

• The essential issue is how to define a vector or dual vector
in a curved space, and what that implies.

The essential mathematics will be discussed in more depth

later, but the salient points are that

1. Vectors are not specified directly in a curved space, but

instead are defined in a euclidean vector space attached to
the manifold at each point called the tangent space.
2. Likewise, dual vectors are defined in a euclidean vector
space attached to the manifold at each spacetime point that
is called the cotangent space.
3. The tangent space of vectors and the cotangent space of
dual vectors at a point P are different but dual to each
other in a manner that will be made precise below.
4. This duality allows objects in the two different spaces to
be treated as effectively the same kinds of objects.

As will be discussed further later, vectors and dual

vectors are special cases of tensors, and this per-
mits an abstract definition in terms of mappings
from vectors and dual vectors to real numbers.
28 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

To be specific,

• Dual vectors ω are linear maps of vectors V to the real

V ) = ωiV i ∈ R.
numbers: ω (V
• Vectors V are linear maps of dual vectors ω to the real
numbers: V (ω ) = V i ωi ∈ R.

V ) = ωiV i ∈ R can be read as

Expressions like ω (V

• “Dual vectors ω act linearly on vectors V to produce

ωiV i ≡ ∑i ωiV i , which are elements of the real numbers,”
• or “Dual vectors ω are functions (maps) that take vectors
V as arguments and yield ωiV i , which are real numbers”,

Linearity of the mapping means, for example,

ω (A
ω (α A + β B ) = αω A) + β ω (B
B),

where ω is a dual vector, α and β are arbitrary real numbers,

and A and B are arbitrary vectors.

• It is easy to show that, the space of vectors and the space

of dual vectors are both linear vector spaces.
• The vector space of vectors and corresponding vector
space of dual vectors are said to be dual to each other
because they are related by

V ) = V (ω ) = V i ωi ∈ R.
ω (V
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 29

Notice further that A · B = gi j Ai B j

• Defines a linear map from the vectors to the real numbers,

since it takes two vectors A and B as arguments and re-
turns the scalar product, which is a real number.
• Thus one may write

B) = A · B ≡ Ai Bi = gi j Ai B j .
A (B

• But since in Ai Bi = gi j Ai B j the vector B is arbitrary,

Ai = gi j A j ,

• This specifies a correspondence between a vector with

components Ai in the tangent space and a dual vector with
components Ai in the cotangent space.
• Likewise, the above expression can be inverted using that
the inverse of gi j is gi j to give

Ai = gi j A j .

• Hence, using the metric tensor to raise and lower indices

by summing over a repeated index (contraction),
• we see that vector and dual vector components are related
through contraction with the metric tensor.
• This is the precise sense in which the tangent and cotan-
gent spaces are dual: they are different, but closely related
through the metric tensor.
30 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

The duality of the vector and dual vector spaces may be incor-
porated concisely by

• Requiring that for the basis vectors {eei } and basis dual
vectors {eei } satisfy

e i (ee j ) = e i ·ee j = δ ji ,

where the Kronecker delta is defined by

(
1 i= j
δ ji = .
0 i 6= j

• This implies that the basis vectors can be used to project

out the components of a vector V by taking the scalar
product with the vector,

V i = e i ·V
V Vi = e i ·V
V.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 31

A lot of important mathematics has transpired in the last few

equations, so let’s take stock.

• For a space with metric tensor, vectors and dual vectors

are in a one-to-one relationship that permits them to be
manipulated effectively as if a dual vector were just a vec-
tor with a lower index.
• Indices on vectors can be raised or lowered as desired by
contraction with the metric tensor.

Since all spaces of interest here have metrics, this

reduces the practical implications of the distinc-
tion between vectors and dual vectors to keeping
proper track of upper and lower positions for in-
dices.
32 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

2.1.7 Properties of the Metric Tensor

• Because it may be defined through scalar products of basis

vectors, the metric tensor must be symmetric in its indices:

gi j = g ji gi j = g ji .

• Since

gi j ai b j = gi j b j ai = ai bi gi j ai b j = gi j b j ai = ai bi

are valid for arbitrary vector components, it follows that

gi j b j = bi gi j b j = bi .

That is,

Contraction with the metric tensor may be used to

raise or lower an index on a vector.

• Thus the scalar product of two vectors may be written in

any of the following equivalent ways,

a ·bb ≡ ai bi ≡ ai bi = gi j ai b j = gi j ai b j = gij ai b j .
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 33

• From the preceding expressions

bi = gi j b j = gi j g jk bk bi = δki bk ,
| {z }
bj

and since this is valid for arbitrary components bi ,

gi j g jk = gk j g ji = δki .
• Viewing gi j as the elements of a matrix G and gi j as the
elements of a matrix G̃, the equations

gi j = g ji gi j = g ji .
are equivalent to the matrix equations

G = GT G̃ = G̃T ,
where T denotes the transpose. The Kronecker delta is
just the 3×3 unit matrix I, implying that

gi j g jk = gk j g ji = δki

may be written as the matrix equations

G̃G = GG̃ = I.

The matrix corresponding to the covariant com-

ponents of the metric tensor is the inverse of the
matrix corresponding to the contravariant compo-
nents of the metric tensor: one may be obtained
from the other by matrix inversion.
34 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

Box 2.1 The metric tensor for 3-dimensional euclidean space

Components: gi j ≡ e i ·ee j gi j ≡ e i ·ee j gij ≡ e i ·ee j = δ ji
Scalar product: A ·BB = gi j Ai B j = gi j Ai B j = gij Ai B j = Ai Bi = Ai Bi
Symmetry: gi j = g ji gi j = g ji
j
Contractions: g i j A = Ai g i j A j = Ai
Orthogonality: gi j g jk = gk j g ji = δki
Matrix properties : G̃G = GG̃ = I G ≡ [gi j ] G̃ ≡ [gi j ]

Some basic properties of the metric tensor are summarized in

the box above.
2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 35

2.1.8 Line Elements and Distances

• Coordinates u1(t), u2 (t), and u3(t) parameterized by t.

• As the parameter t varies, the points characterized by the
specific values of the coordinates

u1 = u1(t) u2 = u2(t) u3 = u3(t)

will trace out a curve in the three-dimensional space.

• The position vector for these points as a function of t is

r (t) = x(u1 (t), u2 (t), u3 (t)) i + y(u1(t), u2 (t), u3 (t)) j

+z(u1(t), u2 (t), u3 (t)) k ,

• By the chain rule

drr ∂ r du1 ∂ r du2 ∂ r du3
= + 2 + 3
dt ∂ u1 dt ∂ u dt ∂ u dt
ṙr = u̇1 e1 + u̇2 e2 + u̇3 e3,

where the definitions

drr ∂r i dui
ṙr ≡ ei ≡ i u̇ ≡
dt ∂u dt

have been used.

36 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

• In summation convention the equation

ṙr = u̇1e 1 + u̇2e 2 + u̇3e 3,

is ṙr = u̇i e i .
• This may be expressed in differential form as drr = dui e i .
• Thus the squared infinitesimal distance along the curve is

ds2 = drr ·drr = dui e i ·du j e j

= ei ·ee j dui du j
= gi j dui du j ,

where gi j ≡ e i ·ee j has been used.

2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 37

• Notice that in expressing the line element

ds2 = gi j dui du j

we use the usual convention that dα 2 ≡ (dα )2 .

• That is, dα 2 means the square of dα , not the differential
of α 2 .
• Thus ds2 = gi j dui du j is the infinitesimal line element for
the space described by the metric gi j .
• The length d of a finite segment between points a and b is
obtained from the integral
Z b 1/2
dui du j
Z b Z b

j 1/2
d= ds = gi j dui du = gi j dt,
a a a dt dt

where t parameterizes the position along the segment.

t b

ds

a
38 CHAPTER 2. COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

For example:

• The line element for two-dimensional euclidean space in

cartesian coordinates (x, y) is given by

ds2 = dx2 + dy2,

which is just the Pythagorean theorem for right triangles

having infinitesimal sides.
• The corresponding line element expressed in plane polar
coordinates (r, ϕ ) is then the familiar

ds2 = dr2 + r2dϕ 2 .

2.1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE 39

Example 2.4
For plane polar coordinates (r, ϕ ) we have
x = r cos ϕ y = r sin ϕ ,
so the position vector may be expressed as
r = (r cos ϕ ) i + (r sin ϕ ) j .
Then the basis vectors in the natural basis are
∂r ∂r
e1 = = (cos ϕ )ii + (sin ϕ ) j e2 = = −r(sin ϕ ) i + r(cos ϕ ) j .
∂r ∂ϕ
The elements of the metric tensor then follow from gi j ≡ e i ·ee j :
g11 = cos2 ϕ + sin2 ϕ = 1 g22 = r2(cos2 ϕ + sin2 ϕ ) = r2
and g12 = g21 = 0, or in matrix form
!
1 0
gi j = .
0 r2
Then the line element is
ds2 = gi j dxi du j = g11 (du1 )2 + g22(du2 )2 = dr2 + r2dϕ 2 ,
where u1 = r and u2 = ϕ .
This can be expressed as the matrix equation
! !
1 0 dr
ds2 = (dr dϕ )
0 r2 dϕ
!
dr
= (dr dϕ ) = dr2 + r2dϕ 2.
2
r dϕ
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 Quartié 0·885 Gallon 0·89
1/2 „ 0·442 Pot (1/10 0·445
Cabot)
Pot, Pechié 0·221 Quarte 0·222
Fuieto 0·11 Pinte 0·111
N.B.—The Escandau is the Panau diminished in wheat-water ratio.
The Jersey pot is the fluid measure in wheat-water ratio with 1/8
cabot.
There seems no doubt that the cabot is the eighth of the setier (and
of the Cargo), slightly variant, as the Jersey pound is a variant of the
Paris pound.
There is also a measure for apples = 3·77 bushels or 30 gallons. The
ordinary barattée (churnful) of apples in Normandy is 25 pots = 10
gallons.
The larger Cabot for barley and other grains except wheat was to be
= 1-1/3 of the wheat cabot, that is 13-1/3 pots; it was therefore =
5·933 gallons, very nearly 3/4 an imperial bushel = 1647 c.i. Was it
fixed at this size to hold approximately the same weight of barley,
&c., as the smaller cabot held of wheat, or was it the Boisseau de
Jumièges = 1648 c.i. approximately? That I cannot say. But the
question is of some importance historically, for Guernsey adopted a
bushel of about this capacity, the lineage of which is a matter of
considerable interest.
2. Guernsey.—In 1582, also in 1611, the Guernsey bushel was
ordered to be 16 inches diameter and 8 inches deep; it was to hold
13 pots and a quart. The pot was not defined: at the end of the
seventeenth century it is recorded to be equal to 121 cubic inches.
On this basis the bushel should be 1633 cubic inches, but according
to the dimensions ordered it contains only 1608 cubic inches. This is
evidently one of the cases where the wish to order a measure of
simple dimensions has caused the standard to deviate practically
from its calculated value. There is considerable doubt as to the
capacity of the pot, the original standard of which is not extant. But
from the definition of the Guernsey bushel as 13-1/2 pots of
approximately 121 cubic inches, it would seem that this was
considered as roughly equivalent to the 13-1/3 pots, each 123-1/2
cubic inches, of the Jersey barley-bushel = 1647 c.i.
The bushel is divided, on its calculated capacity of 13-1/2 pots, =
1631 c.i., into
2 Cabotels
6 Denerels (Jersey sixtonniers) = 272 c.i.
30 Quintes = 54-1/2 „
The Denerel is thus, probably by mere coincidence, exactly the old
corn-gallon, and the bushel is 6 corn-gallons.
The word Denerel means ‘standard’ in the sense of the standard coin
or pattern piece, the Denerial or Deneral, to which the French
moneyers had to strike deniers or silver pence. We may confer with
this term the Marseilles Escandau, meaning ‘standard,’ a measure =
3·54 gallons, the basis of a whole system of measures.
But if the bushel were based on another measure than the obsolete
pot—on a standard still extant in the Sheriff’s Office, the

Quinte, grande mesure du marché de Guernesey 1615,

it would be of larger capacity. For the Quinte, I found when I

measured it in 1885, is approximately 54·7 cubic inches, and it is
stated to contain fully 32 ounces of water. As it happens to be equal
to a fifth of the imperial gallon, the Denerel should be equal to an
imperial gallon, and the bushel to 6 gallons.
There are two other bushels:
The Coal-bushel (1611) of 18-1/2 inches diameter, by 8 deep, then
stated to be equal to 16-3/4 pots (an evident mistake, in Roman
numerals, for 17-3/4 pots) and containing an English corn-bushel.
The Barley-bushel, 1625 and 1673, to contain 17-1/2 pots; of such
size that it should hold, striked, as much as the wheat-bushel held
when heaped. Its calculated capacity is 2117·5 c.i. = 7·63 gallons.

Wine-Measures

These have assimilated themselves in the course of trade to those of

the countries of exportation, but the fluid measures of the islands
still subsist for cider and other liquors. The Jersey gallon is, or was,
2 pots = 247 c.i. The Guernsey gallon is, or was, 1/8 of the bushel =
252 c.i. or perhaps 2 pots = 242 c.i.
Both are somewhat over the old English wine-gallon.

Weights

The Jersey pound, = 7561 grains, is 7 grains over the old French
pound; 104 pounds make a cwt. = 112·3 lb.
The Guernsey pound, = 7623 grains, differs by only 2 grains from
the Amsterdam pound; 100 Guernsey pounds = 108·9 lb.
There is a tradition that this pound was originally 18 ounces of
Rouen weight, reduced in 1730 to 16 ounces. But it is not 16 ounces
of any weight but that of Amsterdam. It may have been originally 16
ounces of some heavy pound with an ounce of about 530 grains,
akin to the Austrian and Russian ounce; then converted into 18
lighter ounces, and afterwards 16 ounces were taken for the pound.
In the seventeenth century it is recorded as being 18 ounces of 471
grains, which is approximately the Paris standard = 472·1 grains. In
1730 it was ordered to be of 16 ounces, but of what standard there
is no evidence. And in the nineteenth century it is 16 ounces of
476·6 grains, almost exactly the Amsterdam standard. It looks as if
the change in 1730 was to 16 ounces of another standard,
Amsterdam Troy, instead of French Troy.
I have given some space to these Channel Island measures, so
interesting as a survival of Norman measures and as a link between
the measures of old France and of England. The peculiar monetary
system of Guernsey will be given in Chapter XIII.
 2. South Africa (Cape Colony)
Here we find two systems, those of Holland and of England, used
according to public convenience, and combined as far as possible.
The linear standard is Rhineland; the foot = 12·356 inches. The rod
is 12 Rhineland feet; the English mile is reckoned as 426 rods.
The land-unit is the Morgen = 2·12 acres, of 600 square rods.
Weights are now Imperial; with a cental-cwt., and a ton of 20
centals or 2000 lb.
For corn measures, Imperial and Dutch measures are combined in
the Mud of 3 bushels or 4 Schepels.
For fluid measure the unit is the Anker = 7·95 gallons, a lower
standard than the Amsterdam anker = 8·5 gallons, probably through
the influence of English measure. The Legger (leaguer) is 126·6
gallons, in 4 Aam, 16 Anker and 80 Velts. This gives the Velt
somewhat a lower standard than in Java, where the legger = 127·34
gallons, and the velt = 1·59 gallons.
 3. India
Of the measures and weights of India, a country containing one-fifth
of the population of the world, divided into many nationalities, only a
slight sketch can be given, and that chiefly of the measures used in
British India as distinguished from the tributary states. The
measures of the Aryan population of Hindustan, and those of the
Dravidian peoples of peninsular India, are different; moreover the
influence of the Moslem conquerors, Mogul and Pathan, of the
Portuguese in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, of the
English in more modern times, has modified these measures.
As in other Eastern countries the linear unit is usually a cubit, the
hástha or háth, divided into 24 digits. Traces of the Egyptian
increased cubit are to be found. In a classical work on architecture,
the Mánasára, the Hástha, of 24 digits for timber, is increased to 25
for temples, to 26 for houses, to 27 for municipal buildings and land.
The addition of 3 digits to the 24 of the Egyptian common cubit
would give 27 digits, approximately equal to the 28 smaller digits of
the royal cubit.
In Southern India the cubit is sometimes the mūyangál (mūyam,
cubit; kál, leg), the length from the knee to the ankle.
In Malabar the unit is the Kol = 28-1/4 inches as used for timber;
but for land it seems to have increased to 30 inches.
The kol was probably 3 spans or half-cubits of 9·41 inches.
A guz brought by the Moslems, = 33 inches, has established itself in
Bengal. It was probably 3 Beládi feet of 10·944 inches.
The Portuguese Covado of 3 spans = 27·17 inches, usually taken as
27 inches, has established itself in Western India. It is divided into
48 digits, of which two-thirds, i.e. 32 digits = 18 inches, are the
usual cubit; 1/8 of this = the English nail.
All these measures appear to have been modified by the English foot
and inch.
Native itinerary measures are rough and variable; the Koss of 100
fathoms is the usual standard.
Land-measures are of course very variable.
12 guz, usually = 33 feet, make a cord or chain, and 5 cords make a
Jarib = 10 rods. A square jarib = 100 square rods, is the usual Bigha
of Northern India = O·625 acre.
Another unit is the Mah of 100 rods 12 × 12 feet = 1600 square
yards, about half the above bigha.
Land-units, like most other units, can be divided into 16 annas, so
that the anna of the bigha is 200, that of the Mah is 100, square
yards.
In Madras the unit of land measure is the Káni (cawny) = 1-1/3 acre
of 24 grounds = 6400 square yards. So there appears to be a
common unit of about 1600 square yards, with its anna or sixteenth
= 100 square yards or 10 yards square.
Five káni make a Véli, the usual extent of arable land which can be
cultivated for rice or other wet crops by a peasant with a yoke of
oxen.
Everywhere there are seed-measures of land, as in other countries.

Weights

These are derived from a coin-weight basis, the silver rupee-weight

or Tola in most parts, the golden pagoda-weight or Varahan in the
south of India. In each case 80 of these coin-units made a Sér. (See
Indian Coinage, in Chap. XIII.)
The Bengal sér, 80 tolas of 180 grs. = 14,400 grs.
The Madras sér, 80 varahan of 54 „ = 4320 „
The Bombay sér was based on another gold coin, the tanc (gold) of
a little over 68 grains, 72 of which = 4900 grains.
The Bengal sér is, curiously enough, = 2 Cologne pounds of 7200
grains. It is divided into 16 chittaks or double ounces of 5 tolas. The
tola is divided into 12 mashas (= 15 grains) of 8 ráti (the red seed of
Abrus precatoria): 40 sér make a mánd = 82·28 lb.
This sér (Ang. seer), the Government standard, is really a Troy
weight. The rupee of different standard in the three presidencies
was fixed in 1833 at 180 grains, 3 drachms of the Troy ounce; this
being so, the sér of 80 rupees weight is = 30 Troy ounces and the
mánd of 40 sérs is = 1200 Troy ounces or 100 Troy pounds.
About 1870-72 the metric propaganda was epidemic among Indian
Government Engineers; light railways were made on metre-gauge,
and a nearly successful attempt was made to get the sér fixed at
one kilogramme. An Act was about to be passed to this effect when
the death of Lord Mayo stopped it, and the Act fell through.
The Bengal sér and mánd[34] are the usual weights for official
purposes. Some other sérs are used, often of low standard known as
Kucha sérs (unripe, half-baked) in regard to the pukka (ripe, full-
measure) sér of 80 tolas.
The Madras mánd was = 24·68 lb.; 20 mánd = 1 kándi, 493·7 lb.;
but English trade considered the mánd as 25 lb. and the ‘candy’ as
500 lb.
Madras had also a weight called the Vísham (Ang. Viss) of 120 tolas
= 5 of its sérs, or 3·086 lb. divided into 40 pollams.

Capacity

To this Madras weight corresponds the Adangáli, dangáli or puddi, or

measure containing a vísham of grain, and therefore a pound-pint
measure = about 3 pints. It is the usual measure of the daily grain-
wage of agricultural labourers.
Similarly in other parts of India, the sér measure contains a sér
weight of the usual food grain.
The measure is usually heaped, and whether sér or dangáli it
delivers approximately either a sér or a vísham of the usual grains,
rice, wheat, millet, pulse, &c. It is a pound-pint measure, avoiding
the use of the balance. The Madras Government wanted to fix the
dangáli at 100 cubic inches, but this would have been useless as not
delivering a vísham. The necessary capacity to deliver a vísham of
water is found by 3·086 lb. × 27·725 to be 85·76 cubic inches.
Increased in the Southern water-wheat ratio of 1 : 1·22, we have
104·62 cubic inches as the true dangáli measure. So Government
allowed 104-1/4 cubic inches, and this was about the capacity of a
dangáli 8 inches high by 4 inches diameter, often a section of
bamboo cut down to the proper capacity.
In Madras, the dangáli, puddi or measure is then = 104-1/4 c.i.
divided into 8 ollocks; and 8 dangáli = 1 Mercál; 424 mercáls, = 120
Bengal mánds, made a Garce, which is a Government measure for
salt = 4·4 tons.
The cubic measure used in Southern India for dry goods, such as
lime, is the Parah = 5 mercáls = 5 × 8 dangáli, or 4000 cubic inches
at 100 c.i. to the dangáli: but 4184 c.i. at the customary capacity of
that measure; so the parah is = 15 gallons.
The Bombay parah = 4-1/2 gallons.
The Ceylon parah = 5·6 gallons; 8 parah = 1 amómam = 5·6
bushels.
To the amómam of grain corresponds the amómam of land, which,
at 2 bushels seed to the acre, = 2·8 acres. By measurement it is
2·74 acres.
 4. Burma and the Straits
In Burma, as in the ancient Eastern Kingdoms, there was a common
cubit and a royal cubit. The former, = 19-1/2 inches, was of 24
digits, in 3 taim or handshafts; the latter = 22 inches. Here we have
repeated the two Hindu hástha of 24 and 27 digits; the royal cubit
being almost exactly 27/24 of the common cubit.
The basis of weight is the Tikal (shekel), = 252 grains (= 1 cubic
inch of water), divided into 4 moo, = 63 grains, and 16 gyi of 15-3/4
grains (corresponding to the Indian masha), of 8 rati.
100 tikal = 1 piet-tha = 3·6 lb., corresponding to the Indian vísham.
The principal measure of capacity is the teng or basket, somewhat
less than a bushel; it contains 16 piet of rice = 57·6 pound-pints.
The tikal of Siam = 234 grains; 80 tikal = 1 catty = 2-2/3 lb.; 50
catty = 1 pikal, = 133-3/4 lb., or about 2 bushels of rice.
The Pikal (i.e. man’s load) of Singapore (and of China) = 133-1/3 lb.,
is of 100 catty; the catty = 1-1/3 lb. of 16 taels = 1-1/3 oz. The tael
is of 10 mace; the mace is a Chinese coin-weight = 58-1/3 grain, the
representative of the Greek and Asiatic drachma in the Far East.
The pikal of Java = 135·63 lb., similarly divided.
The hyak-kin or pikal of Japan = 132-1/2 lb. It is also of 100 catty or
kin = 1·325 lb. of 16 × 10 momme, the latter a weight equivalent to
the mace = 58 grains; and 10 × 10 momme make another unit, the
hyaku-me = 5797 grains.
I refrain from doing more than giving a glance at the weights and
measures of the Far East; suffice it to say that most of them have
every appearance of being Arabic in origin.
 5. Canada and Mauritius

Canada

The Imperial system is used, but the Cental replaces the long Cwt.
and its stone divisions.
In the old French districts of Quebec certain old French measures
are lawful: the Paris foot, the perch, usually of 20 feet, the Arpent of
100 perches.
The Minot, of 3 boisseaux = 1·073 bushel, is still used.

Mauritius

This island, formerly a French colony, retained the old French

measures and weights: the Paris foot, the Toise, the Mille of 1000
toises = 1·21 mile, the Perch, usually of 18 feet, the Arpent of 100
perches, the French livre, the corn-setier, the wine-setier or Velte =
1·639 gallon.
The Metric system was substituted in 1876, notwithstanding that
‘the feeling of a great portion of the community was so strongly
against it that in 1882 it was thought to be not improbable that the
British Imperial weights and measures might be reverted to’
(‘Merchants’ Handbook,’ by W. A. Browne, 1899). It is added that
this antagonistic feeling gradually died out, but evidence on this
point would be desirable.

33. Etudes sur la condition de la classe agricole en Normandie au

moyen age (Leopold V. Delisle, 1851).
34. The difficulty in representing the sound á, ah, in English letters
led to a general substitution of aw. Hence ‘cawny, maund,
ghaut (steep), pawni (water), cawn (khan),’ &c.; all these
words having an a, or ah, vowel. The Anglo-Indian also says
seer for sér.
CHAPTER XIII

MEASURES OF VALUE
 1. English Money
In all times money has been the weight of a certain amount of
copper, silver or gold, in the form of coins the fineness of which is
guaranteed by the stamp of the State. The weight of coins used in
payments may change in course of time, but the nominal unit of
weights often continues, the pound, or livre, or marc, &c. Thus, the
original Roman unit, the As, or mint-pound of copper or bronze,
reduced gradually to 1/24 of its primitive weight, persisted as a
money of account long after it had been replaced in the currency by
the silver Denarius. This was originally coined at a time when it
represented the value of 10 As; hence its name deni-aris, ten of
copper.
The French livre, or livre d’estelins, reduced gradually to a coin
about 1/74 of a 12-oz. livre, retains its name as a synonym of the
franc.
The English pound of silver, once a Tower pound = 5400 grains,
reduced long ago to 1745 grains, in 20 shillings, persists as a money
of account, though the silver is superseded in payments over 40
shillings by a gold coin weighing 123-1/4 grains. Prices over 40s. are
still often stated in shillings.
The Roman denarius originally weighed 60 grains, afterwards
reduced to 52-1/2 grains. A golden denarius was also coined, which
afterwards became the Arabic dinar.
Under Charlemagne the mint weight of France was heavier than the
marc of Troyes afterwards adopted as a standard. Adapting the
Roman system to the customs of his Teutonic subjects the emperor
Karl divided the pound of silver into 20 silver solidi or sols, each
equal to 12 silver penings or pennies of about 25 grains which,
assimilated to the Roman denarii, were called deniers, also estelins
or sterlings. The solidus appears to have corresponded to a Teutonic
monetary unit, the shilling, equal to a variable number of penings,
which coins were not of uniform value until about Charlemagne’s
time.
The Carlovingian systems of coinage had passed to England long
before the Norman Conquest, displacing the old Norse and Saxon
systems—the Norse, in which the Ore was of 20 silver penings = 1/8
marc or 1/12 lb., and the Saxon Sceatta of 40 Styca, usually
equivalent to pence. The shilling, = 1/20 pound of silver pence,
became established—‘xxx scyllinge penega,’ thirty shillings of pence
(‘Saxon Chronicle,’ 775). The Norman Conquest made no appreciable
change in the English customary coinage. The Tower pound of silver
which the Normans found established was coined into 240 of the
‘English peny called a sterling,’ each weighing 22-1/2 grains instead
of the 25 grains of Charlemagne’s sterlings. Twelve pence made a
shilling of 20 to the pound, and twenty pence or pennyweights made
an ounce of 12 to the mint-pound.
England soon followed France, but much more slowly, in the usual
dwindling of the weight of coins, as the king, pushed for money,
ordered his moneyers to melt down the silver pennies and recoin
them of lower weight. They remained at 22-1/2 grains down to the
time of Edward I. Edward III’s first pennies were of 22-1/4 grains,
but in the 18th year of his reign they weighed 20-1/4 grains, in the
20th year 20 grains, and after the 27th year he made the pound of
silver yield 300 pennies at 18 grains. He also coined groats (great
sterlings or grosses). Silver halfpence (mayles) and farthings
(ferlynges) were coined, and a statute specially ordered that no
sterling halfpenny nor farthing be molten ‘for to make vessel or any
other thing by goldsmiths nor others.’
At this time, if we may believe the Statute of Labourers, one penny
was the usual daily pay of the farm-labourer, but mowers were to
have fivepence by the acre or the day. Prices of farm-produce were
fixed. A penny would buy a chicken or six pounds of bread, 2 pence
a fowl, 4 pence a goose.
The diminution in the weight of the penny was slow and did not
affect wholesale dealings in which payment was usually made by
weight.[35]
In all but retail transactions payment might be agreed to be by
weight. In Stephen’s reign the land-revenue of countries was farmed
out. The sheriff or ‘fermour’ of Wiltshire and Dorsetshire paid into
the treasury £454 10s. by weight (ad pensum) and £262 4s. by tale
(numero). He probably picked out the full-weight coins for payment
by tale, and had to take (as perhaps he received) weight-value for
the rest.
Under Henry IV the sterling had fallen to 15 grains; under Edward IV
it fell to 12 grains, at which weight it stood till Henry VIII brought it
down to 10-1/2 grains, and also debased it to only one-third its
weight of silver. His father had coined shillings, hitherto only a
money of account; his own mint continued this coinage, but got 48
of them, instead of 20, from the Troy pound of silver, and
subsequently by debasement nearly 150.
In Edward VI’s reign the Protector Somerset continued this system,
but, at his fall, efforts were made by the Council to restore honesty
to the coinage, at least as regards the shillings and crowns. The
pennies remained debased until the wisdom of Elizabeth restored
the standard, and since that time our silver coinage has remained of
true standard and at the weight of 7-1/2 grains for each penny
value, or one-third of its weight at the time of the Norman Conquest.
The Scots silver coinage fell much lower than that of England; by the
time of the Union it had fallen to 1/36, the pound Scots being worth
20 pence English, instead of 20 shillings.
It is curious that the kings, so ready to make a profit by lowering the
silver coins, appear to have disdained the evident profit of a copper
coinage. Penalties were repeatedly threatened by statute against the
copper coins which necessity of ‘change’ caused to be made or
imported. These were unlawful coins called galyhalpens, saskyns,
dodekyns and dotkins (probably Scottish ‘doits’). James I granted a
patent for the making of copper farthings. Halfpennies were first
coined in Charles II’s time, but it was not till near the end of George
III’s reign that a copper penny was struck, probably because the
tradition of the silver penny weighing 32 wheat-corns, albeit
shrunken, was against the penny being other than silver.
The penny was at first a full ounce of copper. Twopenny pieces were
also struck weighing two ounces.
The present bronze coinage was made in 1860 after the example of
the bronze coinage of Napoleon III, the reformer of the French
currency; it was he who established a gold standard in France,
hitherto a ‘silver country.’
A bronze penny not much worn weighs 1/3 oz., the halfpenny 1/5
oz. The latter is one inch in diameter. The silver penny of early
Plantagenet times was the size of the present sixpence but thinner,
so that, at the full weight of 22-1/2 grains, it was slightly heavier
than our threepenny piece = 21·8 grains. It bore the effigy of the
king with ‘Henricus Rex’ or suchlike inscription; on the reverse was a
cross, with pellets or other ornaments in the intervals, and the name
of the moneyer and city, as ‘Edmund on Lin(coln).’ The cross gave
rise to the idea that it indicated where the penny could be broken or
cut into halfpence or farthings. Doubtless it was so cut where
change was scarce; and the first silver farthing was coined by
Edward I, 1279, to prevent this cutting up of the pence, but equally
with a cross.
At present silver pence and twopences are only coined for Maundy
money.
The groat of four pence, grossus sterlingus, first coined about 1279,
discontinued from the time of Elizabeth, who first coined sixpences
and threepences, was revived in 1836 at the instance, or insistence,
of Joseph Hume, an M.P. who, it is said, found it convenient for the
exact payment of an 8d. London cab fare not exceeding a mile in the
days when copper pennies weighing an ounce were inconvenient to
carry in the pocket. He died in 1855, and in 1856 the Joey was
discontinued.
The threepenny piece was revived in 1845.
The florin was first issued in 1849, an ill-advised attempt at
decimalising the pound; it bore the inscription ‘one tenth of a pound,’
but it has utterly failed to take the place of the convenient half-
crown, an important unit in the binary division of the pound. Public
convenience appreciates the gold sovereign and half-sovereign, the
silver half-crown, shilling, sixpence and threepence. The florin is a
disturbing coin offering no advantage over two separate shillings;
and the double florin is worse.
No one wants the pound decimalised except a few decimal
unpractical persons. A properly taught schoolboy adds up sums of
money duodecimally for the pence, decimally for the shillings,
converting these by twenties into pounds. It is quite easy to add up
a column of pence thus: 8 and 5, 1s. 3d.; and 10, 2s. 1d.; and 8, 2s.
9d.; and 5, 3s. 2d. With the shillings column the units are put down
and the tens carried to the column of tens; an odd 1 is put down
and half the remainder carried to the column of pounds.
English silver coins are 37/40 = 0·925 fine, i.e. 11 oz. 2 dwt. of the
now obsolete 12 oz. mint-pound.
French five-franc pieces are at 0·900, other silver coins are 0·835
fine.

Gold Coins

Of the two precious metals, only one can be the standard of value.
In a gold-standard country, as England has been since 1816, the
golden sovereign of lawful weight is the standard of value. As the
price of silver, like that of every other commodity, varies with
demand and supply, it would be futile to attempt to make silver
coins correspond in actual metal value to gold coins; especially as,
since the great fall in the price of silver from its demonetisation in
many countries and its large production, silver coins are really
tokens; tokens of value, but still tokens, not legal tender above a
certain amount. A shilling melted down is only worth fivepence or
less; while sovereigns melted down can be exchanged, at a trifling
charge, for their weight in minted gold.
In silver-standard countries it is gold which varies in price. Thus in
India, where for centuries the standard of value has been the silver
rupee now weighing 180 grains and worth fifty years ago a little over
two shillings, gold coins of the same weight called ‘mohurs’ were
current at market price, about 16 rupees more or less. Sovereigns
were worth about 10 rupees in 1860; they would exchange now for
double that price did not the Government of India, by restricting
silver coinage and other legitimate devices, keep the gold price of
the rupee at about 1s. 4d., so that 15 rupees will buy a sovereign for
transactions with England and other gold-standard countries.
Gold was coined in ancient Rome. The gold solidus or aureus of
Constantine was 1/72 of an As or mint-pound; so that it weighed
70·14 grains. It was called ‘solidus,’ entire, as distinguished from the
semissis and tremissis, its half and third. The original French sol, or
shilling, was an ‘entire’ of 12 deniers; hence the £ s. d. we use were
once the current signs, in France and elsewhere, for libræ, solidi,
denarii.
There were some gold coins of the early Saxon kings. Under the
early Norman kings foreign gold coins were current, but the first
regular gold coinage was that of Edward III; his Noble of fine gold,
1/50 of a Tower pound, weighed 108 grains, the weight of two
golden florins of Florence or of two ducats or zechins of Venice. He
afterwards coined nobles at the rate of 42 to the mint-pound; these
weighed 119 grains, and, as they were of 23-7/8 carats fine,
contained almost exactly the same weight of pure gold as the
modern sovereign of 123-1/4 grains. Their value was about half a
marc or 80 sterlings of full weight, and as the proper weight of silver
in English coins was then three times that at present, the 6s. 8d.
equivalence of the noble then is that of the sovereign now.
The weight of gold coins mattered little in practice; they were always
weighed, and represented an amount of sterling varying according
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com