What Does \nabla_{[a}F_{bc]} Mean? Notation Question Answered!

  • Thread starter Thread starter cristo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Messages
8,144
Reaction score
75
Does anyone know what this means: \nabla_{[a}F_{bc]}? I know that F_{(ab;c)}=\frac{1}{3}(F_{ab;c}+F_{bc;a}+F_{ca;b}), and presume that the first expression can be written thus F_{[bc;a]}, but am not sure what it means!

Can anyone help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cristo said:
Does anyone know what this means: \nabla_{[a}F_{bc]}? I know that F_{(ab;c)}=\frac{1}{3}(F_{ab;c}+F_{bc;a}+F_{ca;b}), and presume that the first expression can be written thus F_{[bc;a]}, but am not sure what it means!

Can anyone help?

Any time you see square brackets around indices it means that you permute the indices, with even permutations receiving a plus sign and odd permutations receiving a minus sign. Thus,

\nabla_{[a}F_{bc]} = \frac{1}{3!}\sum_{\pi\in S(3)}\textrm{sign}(\pi)\nabla_{\pi(a)}F_{\pi(b)\pi(c)}

where S(3) is the symmetric group of order three, \pi is a permutation, and sign(\pi) equals one for an even permutation of the elements and minus one for an odd permutation of the elements. In your case you can expand out the above definition to obtain

\nabla_{[a}F_{bc]} = \frac{1}{3!}(\nabla_aF_{bc} + \nabla_bF_{ca} + \nabla_cF_{ab} - \nabla_aF_{cb} - \nabla_bF_{ac} - \nabla_cF_{ba})
 
Last edited:
shoehorn said:
Any time you see square brackets around indices it means that you permute the indices, with even permutations receiving a plus sign and odd permutations receiving a minus sign. Thus,

\nabla_{[a}F_{bc]} = \nabla_aF_{bc} + \nabla_bF_{ca} + \nabla_cF_{ab} - \nabla_aF_{cb} - \nabla_bF_{ac} - \nabla_cF_{ba}

Ahh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick reply! In this case F is the electromagnetic field tensor, and so is antisymmetric. Would I be right in assuming that in this case the equation becomes \nabla_{[a}F_{bc]} = \frac{1}{3}\left(\nabla_aF_{bc} + \nabla_bF_{ca} + \nabla_cF_{ab}\right)
 
cristo said:
Ahh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick reply! In this case F is the electromagnetic field tensor, and so is antisymmetric. Would I be right in assuming that in this case the equation becomes \nabla_{[a}F_{bc]} = \frac{1}{3}\left(\nabla_aF_{bc} + \nabla_bF_{ca} + \nabla_cF_{ab}\right)

Yes. If F_{ab} are taken as the components of the Maxwell tensor then \nabla_{[a}F_{bc]}=0 is essentially the Bianchi identity for the electromagnetic field.

Another way to think about it is to notice that \nabla_{[a}F_{bc]}=0 is precisely the same statement as d\mathbf{F}=0 where \mathbf{F}=d\mathbf{A} is the Maxwell two-form. The identity d\mathbf{F}=0 is guaranteed since for any p-form field \mathbf{A} one has d\cdot(d\mathbf{A})=0.
 
Last edited:
That's a good way to think about it. Thanks a lot for your help, shoehorn!
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top