Register to reply

Einstein Summation Convention

by joe:)
Tags: convention, einstein, summation
Share this thread:
joe:)
#1
Feb28-10, 12:14 PM
P: 28
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

Basically need to use einstein's summation convention to find the grad of (mod r)^n and a.r where a is a vector and r = (x,y,z)

2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution

Not sure where to begin really.. :S

grad (mod r)^n= (d/dx, d/dy, d/dz) of root (X1^2 + x2^2 + x3^2)^n..

Just not sure what to do now..
thanks
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Experts defend operational earthquake forecasting, counter critiques
EU urged to convert TV frequencies to mobile broadband
Sierra Nevada freshwater runoff could drop 26 percent by 2100
gabbagabbahey
#2
Feb28-10, 12:54 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
If you write it out using unit vector notation instead of ordered triplets, you will see a sum of three terms. The Einstein summation convention can be used to reduce that sum to just one term with an implied summation over an index.
joe:)
#3
Feb28-10, 01:21 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
If you write it out using unit vector notation instead of ordered triplets, you will see a sum of three terms. The Einstein summation convention can be used to reduce that sum to just one term with an implied summation over an index.
sorry not sure what you mean here..

How can i write (mod r)^n in unit vector notation?

gabbagabbahey
#4
Feb28-10, 01:25 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
Einstein Summation Convention

Quote Quote by joe:) View Post
How can i write (mod r)^n in unit vector notation?
You can't, it's a scalar. However, [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex] and [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}(r^n)[/itex] are vectors (Are you comfortable with using boldface type to denote vectors, and normal font for scalars?...If so, you can simply write [itex]r[/itex] to represent the modulus of the position vector [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex] as I have done).
joe:)
#5
Feb28-10, 01:47 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
You can't, it's a scalar. However, [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex] and [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}(r^n)[/itex] are vectors (Are you comfortable with using boldface type to denote vectors, and normal font for scalars?...If so, you can simply write [itex]r[/itex] to represent the modulus of the position vector [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex] as I have done).
Sorry..I'm not really very familiar with the eistein notation and still cant see how to do this :(
gabbagabbahey
#6
Feb28-10, 02:29 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
Start by writing [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex] in unit vector notation...
joe:)
#7
Feb28-10, 02:47 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
Start by writing [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex] in unit vector notation...
so r=r'r where r' is a unit vector
gabbagabbahey
#8
Feb28-10, 02:48 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
Quote Quote by joe:) View Post
so r=r'r where r' is a unit vector
I should have been more specific, try writing it in terms of Cartesian unit vectors.
joe:)
#9
Feb28-10, 02:56 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
I should have been more specific, try writing it in terms of Cartesian unit vectors.
r=(x1i, x2j, x3k)?
gabbagabbahey
#10
Feb28-10, 03:06 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
Quote Quote by joe:) View Post
r=(x1i, x2j, x3k)?
Why do you have an ordered triplet with unit vector inside?

I would say [itex]\textbf{r}=x\textbf{i}+y\textbf{j}+z\textbf{k}[/itex]....does this look familiar to you?

You can rewrite this by defining [itex]x_1\equiv x[/itex], [itex]x_2\equiv y[/itex] and [itex]x_3\equiv z[/itex] as well as [itex]\textbf{e}_1\equiv \textbf{i}[/itex], [itex]\textbf{e}_2\equiv \textbf{j}[/itex], and [itex]\textbf{e}_3\equiv \textbf{k}[/itex] to get;


[tex]\textbf{r}=x\textbf{i}+y\textbf{j}+z\textbf{k}=x_1\textbf{e}_1+x_2\text bf{e}_2+x_3\textbf{e}_3[/tex]

Using the Einstein summation convention, this can be written as [itex]\textbf{r}=x_i\textbf{e}_i[/itex]

Now, try rewriting the gradient operator,

[tex]\mathbf{\nabla}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\textbf{i}+\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\textbf{j}+\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\textbf{k}[/tex] using the same definitions...
joe:)
#11
Feb28-10, 03:15 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
Why do you have an ordered triplet with unit vector inside?

I would say [itex]\textbf{r}=x\textbf{i}+y\textbf{j}+z\textbf{k}[/itex]....does this look familiar to you?

You can rewrite this by defining [itex]x_1\equiv x[/itex], [itex]x_2\equiv y[/itex] and [itex]x_3\equiv z[/itex] as well as [itex]\textbf{e}_1\equiv \textbf{i}[/itex], [itex]\textbf{e}_2\equiv \textbf{j}[/itex], and [itex]\textbf{e}_3\equiv \textbf{k}[/itex] to get;


[tex]\textbf{r}=x\textbf{i}+y\textbf{j}+z\textbf{k}=x_1\textbf{e}_1+x_2\text bf{e}_2+x_3\textbf{e}_3[/tex]

Using the Einstein summation convention, this can be written as [itex]\textbf{r}=x_i\textbf{e}_i[/itex]

Now, try rewriting the gradient operator,

[tex]\mathbf{\nabla}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\textbf{i}+\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\textbf{j}+\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\textbf{k}[/tex] using the same definitions...
Ahh this helps. Thanks

so del is eidi??
joe:)
#12
Feb28-10, 03:18 PM
P: 28
how do i apply this on the r^n now?
gabbagabbahey
#13
Feb28-10, 03:19 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
Quote Quote by joe:) View Post
Ahh this helps. Thanks

so del is eidi??
Sure, if you define [itex]\partial_i\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}[/itex], you get [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}=\textbf{e}_i\partial_i[/itex]

And how about [itex]r[/itex], the modulus of [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex]...what do you get for that in index notation?
joe:)
#14
Feb28-10, 04:13 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
Sure, if you define [itex]\partial_i\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}[/itex], you get [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}=\textbf{e}_i\partial_i[/itex]

And how about [itex]r[/itex], the modulus of [itex]\textbf{r}[/itex]...what do you get for that in index notation?
um xi2??
gabbagabbahey
#15
Feb28-10, 04:19 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
Quote Quote by joe:) View Post
um xi2??
That's not very good notationally (there is no repeated index in your expression, so no summation is implied); I would say [itex]r^2=x_ix_i[/itex], and hence [itex]r^n=(x_ix_i)^{n/2}[/itex].

So, what is [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}(r^n)[/itex] in index notation?
joe:)
#16
Feb28-10, 04:34 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
That's not very good notationally (there is no repeated index in your expression, so no summation is implied); I would say [itex]r^2=x_ix_i[/itex], and hence [itex]r^n=(x_ix_i)^{n/2}[/itex].

So, what is [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}(r^n)[/itex] in index notation?
Thank you..

Sorry I imagine that this is painful for you..sorry :(

so i think it is eidi(xixi)^n/2

But i don't know how to simplify this? ahhhhhh :S

Is there some key concept im missing..
gabbagabbahey
#17
Feb28-10, 04:45 PM
HW Helper
gabbagabbahey's Avatar
P: 5,003
Quote Quote by joe:) View Post
Thank you..

Sorry I imagine that this is painful for you..sorry :(
Your welcome, and don't worry; a lot of students struggle with this stuff when they are first introduced to it.

so i think it is eidi(xixi)^n/2
Another rule when using index notation is that the same index should not be used more than twice in a single term of an expression (If it's used once, it is a free index. If it's used twice, it's a repeated index and a summation is implied. If it is used 3 or 4 or more times, it's just nonsense)

For that reason, this should be written as [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}r^n=\textbf{e}_i\partial_i(x_jx_j)^{n/2}[/itex]. To simplify this, just use the product and chain rules to calculate the derivatives involved.
joe:)
#18
Feb28-10, 05:16 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by gabbagabbahey View Post
Your welcome, and don't worry; a lot of students struggle with this stuff when they are first introduced to it.



Another rule when using index notation is that the same index should not be used more than twice in a single term of an expression (If it's used once, it is a free index. If it's used twice, it's a repeated index and a summation is implied. If it is used 3 or 4 or more times, it's just nonsense)

For that reason, this should be written as [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}r^n=\textbf{e}_i\partial_i(x_jx_j)^{n/2}[/itex]. To simplify this, just use the product and chain rules to calculate the derivatives involved.
Thanks for your patience.

So now im just thinking about how the differentiation rules might apply here.

Is it basically a product rule i.e. d/dx of x^n/2 x^n/2 so it simplifies to nei? but thats nonsensical since there needs to be two indices to convey a summation


arghhhhhhhhh :( :(


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Einstein summation convention proof Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Einstein Summation Convention, Levi-Civita, and Kronecker delta Calculus & Beyond Homework 5
Summation convention and index placement Special & General Relativity 4
Einstein simultaneity: just a convention? Special & General Relativity 152
Einstein Summation Convention / Lorentz Boost Advanced Physics Homework 5