Calculating Indices: Solve the Mystery

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter John Fennie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Indices
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 2K views
John Fennie
Messages
24
Reaction score
2
Would anyone explain how the calculation in the picture was carried out? (the second equal sign)
I don't seem to be able to get the indices right.
 

Attachments

  • index.PNG
    index.PNG
    2.5 KB · Views: 590
Physics news on Phys.org
John Fennie said:
Would anyone explain how the calculation in the picture was carried out? (the second equal sign)
I don't seem to be able to get the indices right.
When the indices are the same in both terms in a product, it means the product is summed/repeated over all the coordinates. When they are different, they are only counted once. Is that helpful?
 
dextercioby said:
Is there any reason why the repeated indices are not placed in opposite directions (i.e. one „upstairs” and one „downstairs”)?
Some authors (I know Schwartz does and mentions it in the preface of his QFT book) find it so obvious that repeated indices should be contracted using the metric that they resort to writing all indices in one position.
 
I was suspecting an ##x_4 = ict ## there, so that is why I asked. I think Schwartz had a bad idea. There's elegance in using indices that way. Not to mention there is a difference between ## F_{\mu\nu}, F^{\mu\nu}, F_{\mu}^{~\nu}, F^{\nu}_{~\mu}##. How is that handled?
 
It is quite clear that you can do whatever you want with free indices as long as you do it on both sides, so that is not a problem. When it comes to summation indices, it is clear that one needs to be taken as contravariant and the other as covariant and it really does not matter which is which so there is no possible misunderstanding there either. I am not saying I approve or that it is a good idea, just that there is no possible confusion if you know what you are doing.
 
John Fennie said:
Would anyone explain how the calculation in the picture was carried out? (the second equal sign)
I don't seem to be able to get the indices right.
Hi yes, i understand that. But I am unable to work the math out, specifically the second +$\frac{1}{2}$