Anitsymmetric tensor/switching indices problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Indices
wasia
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Let's say that some non-operator (having only numbers as it's components) tensor is antisymmetric:

\omega^{\sigma\nu}=-\omega^{\nu\sigma}
and
\omega_{\sigma\nu}=-\omega_{\nu\sigma},

however, I have read in the Srednicki book that it is incorrect to say that the same tensor with one index down and one up would be antisymmetric as well.

Could you please point out, where and what are the errors of the derivation? Should I read something before asking such questions? g here is the Minkowski metric:

\omega^{\nu}\,_{\sigma}=\omega^{\nu\beta}g_{\beta\sigma}=-\omega^{\beta\nu}g_{\beta\sigma}=-\omega_{\sigma}\,^{\nu}<br />

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
wasia said:
Could you please point out, where and what are the errors of the derivation? Should I read something before asking such questions? g here is the Minkowski metric:

-\omega^{\beta\nu}g_{\beta\sigma}=-\omega_{\sigma}\,^{\nu}<br />

Shouldn't there be another step in between?
 
wasia said:
Could you please point out, where and what are the errors of the derivation? Should I read something before asking such questions? g here is the Minkowski metric:

\omega^{\nu}\,_{\sigma}=\omega^{\nu\beta}g_{\beta\sigma}=-\omega^{\beta\nu}g_{\beta\sigma}=-\omega_{\sigma}\,^{\nu}<br />

This should be fine. Notice that you switched which index was up and which was down.
 
xboy, the steps in between might be something like
-\omega^{\beta\nu}g_{\beta\sigma}=-\omega^{\beta\nu}g_{\sigma\beta}=-g_{\sigma\beta}\omega^{\beta\nu}=-\omega_\sigma\,^\nu
I assume they are valid, as g is undoubtly symmetric (at least in my case) and also g commutes with omega, as they contain only numbers.

Ben Niehoff, I do have noticed, that positions have changed.

However, if anyone could point out a mistake, or tell if that's correct, as Ben says, please do it.
 
Last edited:
Walia, your derivation seems correct to me. I can't think of a case of your derivation being invalid except for the metric being non-symmetric. But I don't know if the metric can be non-symmetric at all.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top