How to deal with the index in Einstein summation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proper use of Einstein summation notation in the context of Lorentz transformations and the representation of tensors, specifically focusing on the components of a tensor expressed as a delta function. Participants explore how to correctly balance indices in equations and express transformations accurately.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how to write Lorentz transformations in Einstein summation notation, particularly regarding the upper and lower indices.
  • One participant suggests that the transformation should be written as U'^k{}_i = T^i{}_m T^n{}_k U^k{}_i, but others argue this is incorrect due to unbalanced indices.
  • Another participant proposes a corrected form, U'^n{}_m = T^i{}_m T^n{}_k U^k{}_i, emphasizing the need for balanced indices on both sides of the equation.
  • There is a discussion about using different notations to clarify the distinction between the transformed tensor and its components, suggesting that the prime notation should be applied to the indices instead of the tensor itself.
  • One participant attempts to prove the invariance of the delta function under Lorentz transformation and presents an equation that is later critiqued for being unbalanced.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of the Kronecker delta as an index-substitution operator and references "index gymnastics" to aid understanding.
  • A later reply confirms a proposed equation as balanced, indicating progress in understanding the notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the initial expressions for the transformations, with multiple competing views on the correct notation and balance of indices. However, there is agreement on the importance of balanced indices in tensor equations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in earlier expressions, particularly regarding the balance of indices and the completeness of definitions related to the delta function. There is also mention of the need for clarity in notation to avoid confusion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners of physics and mathematics who are learning about tensor notation, Lorentz transformations, and the application of Einstein summation convention.

yukcream
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Given U^k_i, the components of U is a delta function i.e for i=k U^i_k =1,
to prove it is invariant under Lorentz transformation~~

I don't know how to express it in Einstein summation notation, I am very confused with the upper-lower index, is it right to write the transformation in this?

U'^k_i = T^i_m T^n_k U^k_i ? where T is the Lorentz transformation~~

yukyuk
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yukcream said:
Given U^k_i, the components of U is a delta function i.e for i=k U^i_k =1,
to prove it is invariant under Lorentz transformation~~

I don't know how to express it in Einstein summation notation, I am very confused with the upper-lower index, is it right to write the transformation in this?

U'^k_i = T^i_m T^n_k U^k_i ? where T is the Lorentz transformation~~

yukyuk
Not exactly. What you have is:

[tex]U'^k{}_i = T^i{}_m T^n{}_k U^k{}_i[/tex]

better, but still not right would be:

[tex]U'^n{}_m = T^i{}_m T^n{}_k U^k{}_i[/tex]

This balances the indices. Note that after summation, the i's and k's will disappear. In that case, the n's and m's will be the same on both sides of the equation. This balance of indices is what you are aiming for.

The problem with this notation is that you can't tell the difference between the two T's. I recommend the following notation which brings out that difference:

[tex]U^{n'}{}_{m'} = T^i{}_{m'} T^{n'}{}_k U^k{}_i[/tex]

Notice that I took the prime off of the tensor U and put it on the indices. There is a lot of justification for this. This notation indicates what you are doing, you are expressing the same tensor in different coordinates.

I also think that this notation lays bare the solution to the problem.

By the way, your description of the delta 'function' is incomplete. You have:

for [itex]i = k \ U^i{}_k = 1[/itex]

but what you should have is:

for [itex]i = k \ U^i{}_k = 1[/itex] and for [itex]i \ne k \ U^i{}_k = 0[/itex]
 
Last edited:
[tex]U'^k_i = T^i_m T^n_k U^k_i[/tex] is not correct because the "free indices" aren't the same on both side... on the left it's [tex]\blacksquare^k_i[/tex] whereas it is [tex]\blacksquare^n_m[/tex] on the right.

The correct form is
[tex]U'^n{}_m= T^i{}_m T^n{}_k U^k{}_i[/tex] (where each side has [tex]\blacksquare^n{}_m[/tex] )
As jimmysnyder suggests, for these coordinate transformations, it may be better to use these primed- and unprimed-indices.

This may help (and I'll use the standard [tex]\delta^a{}_b[/tex] as the Kronecker delta). The Kronecker delta acts like an "index-substitution operator":
[tex]Q^a=\delta^a{}_bQ^b[/tex], which "substitutes a for b".
[tex]Q^a{}_b=\delta^a{}_m\delta^n{}_bQ^m{}_n[/tex], which "substitutes a for m, and b for n".

Try googling "index gymnastics" tensor
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IndexGymnastics.html

Working with tensors made more sense to me after I was introduced to the "abstract index notation"
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_index_notation http://www.ima.umn.edu/nr/abstracts/arnold/einstein-intro.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to prove that the given martix
[tex]U^k{}_i[/tex]
is invariant under Lorentz transformation~ am I correct to prove in following way?
Express U in delta as its really a delta function~

[tex]\delta'^k{}_i=T^i{}_mT^n{}_k\delta^m{}_n[/tex]
[tex]\delta'^k{}_i=T^i{}_mT^m{}_k[/tex] so
[tex]=\delta^k{}_i[/tex]

You both help me a lot and the article linked is very useful thanks :smile:

yukyuk
 
Last edited:
yukcream said:
[tex]\delta'^k{}_i=T^i{}_mT^n{}_k\delta^m{}_n[/tex]
This equation is not balanced in the sense that I described to you. Can you try this a second time? To determine if an equation is balanced, perform the following steps:

1. Start with the equation in question:

[tex]\delta'^k{}_i=T^i{}_mT^n{}_k\delta^m{}_n[/tex]

2. From each side of the equation, eliminate summation indices:

[tex]\delta'^k{}_i=T^iT_k\delta[/tex]

3. Look at the list of superscripted indices on the left and right of the equal sign:

k on the left, i on the right

4. If they are not the same, the equation is not balanced. In that case, stop right here, redo the equation and start again with step 1. If you pass this test, go on to step 5.

5. Look at the list of subscripted indices on the left and right of the equal sign:

i on the left, k on the right

6. If they are not the same, the equation is not balanced. In that case, stop right here, redo the equation and start again with step 1. If you pass this test, then the equation is balanced.
 
O~~~~I get it :biggrin:
The correct answer is this, right?
[tex]\delta^{i'}_{k'}=T^{i'}_{m}T^{n}_{k'}\delta^{m}_{n}[/tex]
[tex]\delta^{i'}_{k'}=T^{i'}_{m}T^{m}_{k'}=\delta^{i'}_{k'}[/tex]

This time the indices on both side is balance?!
thank you very much~~~

yukyuk
 
Last edited:
yukcream said:
right?
Right!

Extra text added to satisfy an unnecessary criterion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K