An ambiguity in the definition of tensors

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Tensors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition and transformation properties of tensors, particularly in the context of coordinate transformations from Cartesian to polar coordinates. Participants explore the implications of these transformations on a specific matrix proposed as a contravariant tensor.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines tensors as multidimensional arrays that transform under coordinate transformations, questioning the behavior of a specific matrix under such transformations.
  • Another participant requests to see the computations performed by the first participant to better understand the issue.
  • Calculations involving the transformation of the proposed tensor are presented, showing that the transformation results in zero for all elements.
  • Some participants note that different types of tensors exist, suggesting that the matrix might not represent a general tensor if it fails to transform correctly under certain conditions.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of tensors, with one participant emphasizing that if an object does not transform according to the tensor transformation rules, it cannot be considered a tensor.
  • Concerns are raised about the determinant of the matrix being zero, which may affect its status as a tensor, although it is noted that the Jacobian does not have a zero determinant.
  • Participants consider the possibility that the matrix in question is an unfortunate choice for a tensor, as it behaves correctly under rotations but fails under the Cartesian to polar transformation.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the classification of the matrix as a tensor, despite being told by a professor that it is a tensor under certain transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the matrix in question qualifies as a tensor, particularly in relation to its transformation properties. There is no consensus on the reasons for its failure to transform correctly under the specified coordinate transformation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of the transformation rules and the determinant of the matrix in determining whether it can be classified as a tensor. The discussion remains open regarding the implications of these factors on the definition of tensors.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
One of the definitions of the tensors says that they are multidimensional arrays of numbers which transform in a certain form under coordinate transformations.No restriction is considered on the coordinate systems involved.So I thought they should transform as such not only under rotations but also under transformation from cartesian to plane polar coordinates,so I tried it on the contravariant tensor below:
\left(\begin{array}{cc}-xy&-y^{2}\\x^{2}&xy\end{array}\right)
But I got zero for all four elements.I got confused then I thought maybe curvilinear coordinates are somehow different from cartesian.Is it correct?If not,what's the reason?
thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe you can show us your computations.
 
r= \sqrt {x^2+y^2}
\theta=tan^{-1}{\frac{y}{x}}

\frac {\partial r} {\partial x} = \frac {x}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}}
\frac {\partial r} {\partial y} = \frac {y}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}}
\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x}=\frac {-y}{x^2+y^2}
\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial y}=\frac {x}{x^2+y^2}

And then I used the transformation rule below and the partial derivatives above:

A^{' kl} = \frac {\partial x^{' k}} {\partial x^{i}} \frac {\partial x^{' l}} {\partial x^{j}} A^{ij}

I calculate one of them here:

<br /> <br /> A^{&#039; 11}=( \frac {x}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} )^2 \times (-xy) + \frac {x}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times \frac {y}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times (-y^2) + \frac {x}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times \frac {y}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times x^2 + ( \frac {y}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} )^2 \times xy =0<br /> <br />

I did the calculations several times,I'm sure there was nothing wrong with them.
 
Last edited:
There are different types of tensors. If you're only worried about how your objects transform between cartesian coordinate systems, then you'll define what you mean by a tensor in terms of orthogonal transformations (and you'll get Cartesian tensors). On the other hand, if you're interested in considering how objects transform under general coordinate transformations, you'll define a tensors (or general tensor) by the transformations of the components as you did above.

Now, not all collections of components will be tensors. Maybe the matrix you defined above doesn't represent the components of a general tensor?
 
Thanks
Now the question is,how can I understand that?
 
Shyan said:
Thanks
Now the question is,how can I understand that?

How do you mean understand?

Tensors are defined as things that transform like T_{a,b}=\frac{ \partial x^n}{\partial x^a}\frac{ \partial x^m}{\partial x^b}T&#039;_{n,m} or the other way if it's mixed or contravariant. If it doesn't transform like this then it isn't a tensor.
There's nothing to really 'understand' about it, it's just a definition, things that don't transform like tensors aren't tensors!
 
Ok.That's right.
But the matrix I've given in my first posts,transforms as a contravariant tensor under rotations but gives zero under transformation from cartesian to polar coordinates.
That's what I want to know the reason.
 
I went through your calculation as well, your transformation rule seems correct...

Maybe the problem is that your coordinate matrix has determinant 0, but I don't see why it's wrong.
 
What you mean by coordinate matrix?
I just know one matrix relating this and that's the Jacobian which does not have zero determinant here.
I think if we analyze another tensor which works well here,we can find the wrong thing.
 
  • #10
Shyan said:
What you mean by coordinate matrix?
I just know one matrix relating this and that's the Jacobian which does not have zero determinant here.
I think if we analyze another tensor which works well here,we can find the wrong thing.

Well, \left(\begin{array}{cc}-xy&amp;-y^{2}\\x^{2}&amp;xy\end{array}\right) has determinant zero. It probably doens't play any role here, but I´m not an expert.

If we took \left(\begin{array}{cc}x&amp;y\\y&amp;x\end{array}\right), it would be

<br /> <br /> A^{&#039; 11}=( \frac {x}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} )^2 \times x + \frac {x}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times \frac {y}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times y + \frac {x}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times \frac {y}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} \times y + ( \frac {y}{\sqrt {x^2+y^2}} )^2 \times x<br /> <br />

which obviously is not zero. So it seems to be as unfortunate choice of tensor and coordinate system. But still, it is wierd. If we tried coordinate transformation to polar coordinates and back to cartesian, result would be zero. Which is wrong.
 
  • #11
You have yet to give any reason why you think that is a tensor!
 
  • #12
Very good point HallsofIvy.
Just the professor at university told that it is a tensor and has done the transformation for rotations and it proved to be a tensor under rotations.
Maybe its not a tensor because it does not work well under this kind of transformation.
So very unfortunate choice.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K