4 dimensional Levi Civita problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter dingo_d
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical expression involving the Levi-Civita symbol, specifically the relation \(\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\tau}\), and the challenge of expressing it in terms of delta functions. The subject area pertains to tensor calculus within the context of general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore properties of the Levi-Civita symbol and its implications when indices are equal or different. Questions arise regarding the conditions under which the expression evaluates to zero and the role of antisymmetrization. There are attempts to clarify the use of the summation convention and its impact on the interpretation of the symbols involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing observations and clarifications about the properties of the Levi-Civita symbols. Some guidance has been offered regarding antisymmetrization and the implications of different values for the indices, but no consensus has been reached on the complete interpretation of the expression.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity introduced by the combination of covariant and contravariant tensors and the potential confusion stemming from the professor's teaching style. There is also mention of an impending test in nuclear physics, which may affect the pace of contributions.

dingo_d
Messages
199
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have the following relation:

[itex]\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\tau}[/itex]

And I have to express that via delta functions.

Homework Equations



I tried looking at the wikipedia but I cannot make sense of that :\
Plus I have once covariant and once contravariant tensor, and I'm summing over 2 indices.

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I would start with a few observations like these:

If [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] have four different values, both factors in each term are =0.

If [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] have exactly three different values, at least one factor in each term is =0.

What if [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] are all the same?
 
Last edited:
Fredrik said:
I think I would start with a few observations like these:

If [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] have four different values, both factors in each term are =0.

If [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] have exactly three different values, at least one factor in each term is =0.

What if [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] are all the same?



The problem is, and I found the answer in Griffiths, introduction to elementary particles, that it says that the result is difference of 2 kronecker deltas, and in wiki rule there seems to be only product, unless they also use Einstein summation convection.

This two Levi Civita symbols contract in [itex]\mu[/itex] and [itex]\nu[/itex], right, which will leave me with one Levi Civita?

I'm totally at loss here. It says that [itex]\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\tau}[/itex] is zero if any two indices are the same, and + or -1 depending on the permutation. So if they are all the same, shouldn't the answer be zero?

I still fail to see how can that help me with that number 8 rule on wikipedia :\

I don't understand what they are trying to say...
 
dingo_d said:
The problem is, and I found the answer in Griffiths, introduction to elementary particles, that it says that the result is difference of 2 kronecker deltas, and in wiki rule there seems to be only product,
Look at the Wikipedia identity again. The brackets on the lower indices denotes antisymmetrization. For example,
[tex]\delta^i_{[j}\delta^n_{m]}=\delta^i_j\delta^n_m-\delta^i_m\delta^n_j[/tex]
dingo_d said:
unless they also use Einstein summation convection.
They are using it. When you see a Levi-Civita symbol, you should always assume that the summation convention is used, unless they explicitly say that it isn't.

dingo_d said:
I'm totally at loss here. It says that [itex]\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\tau}[/itex] is zero if any two indices are the same, and + or -1 depending on the permutation. So if they are all the same, shouldn't the answer be zero?

I still fail to see how can that help me with that number 8 rule on wikipedia :\
Yes, if [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] are all the same, the result is 0. If they take three or four different values, the result is 0. These three observations tell us that the problem is trivial unless [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] have exactly two different values. The idea is to keep making observations that tell us more and more about the result.

Do you at least see why the result is 0 when [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] have 1,3 or 4 different values?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I wasn't aware of the antisymmetrization! I am learning general theory of relativity where we use only tensor notation, but our professor kinda sucks :\ And we never got to symmetrization, or antisymmetrization :(

I'm not quite sure about that last thing you asked :\

You mean only one Levi-Civita? Or two summed?
 
If you see any kind of expression that involves at least one Levi-Civita symbol, you can assume that the summation convention is used, unless they're telling you that it's not.

I forgot a factor when I was talking about antisymmetrization. I think the standard definition includes a factor of 1/n! on the right, like this: [tex]T_{[i_1\cdots i_n]}=\frac{1}{n!}\left(T_{i_1\cdots i_n}+\cdots\right).[/tex] So in particular, [tex]\delta^i_{[j}\delta^n_{m]}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta^i_n\delta^j_m-\delta^i_m\delta^n_j\right).[/tex]

It's not at all hard to prove that [itex]\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\tau}=0[/itex] when [itex]\alpha,\beta,\rho,\tau[/itex] has 1,3 or 4 unique values, so you should give that another try. If you think it looks like it can't be true, then post your argument so I can tell you what you're doing wrong.
 
I will try it, I have test in nuclear physics on Friday, so this will have to wait a bit :D But thanks for the help :)
 
OK then. I expect to see your solution here on Friday night then. :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K