Can You Correctly Lower Tensor Indices Using the Metric Tensor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter beans73
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Indices Tensors
beans73
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have a tensor X^{μ\nu} and I want to make this into X_{μ\nu}. Can I do this by simply saying X_{μ\nu}=\eta_{μ\nu}\eta_{μ\nu} X^{μ\nu} ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
beans73 said:

Homework Statement



I have a tensor X^{μ\nu} and I want to make this into X_{μ\nu}. Can I do this by simply saying X_{μ\nu}=\eta_{μ\nu}\eta_{μ\nu} X^{μ\nu} ??

You have the right idea, but your indices are incorrect (it's ambiguous which indices are to be contracted with which other indices). Try introducing some new indices for the contracted ones, see if you can make it unambiguous.

for example, you could write:

V^{\mu} = \eta^{\mu \nu} V_{\nu}

Which makes it clear which index of eta is contracted, and which isn't. In this case, eta is symmetric so it doesn't really matter, but for a general tensor with two or more indices it does matter.

To explain why it's ambiguous, consider this:

Does X_{μ\nu}=\eta_{μ\nu}\eta_{μ\nu} X^{μ\nu} mean X_{μ\nu}=\eta_{μ\nu}(\eta_{μ\nu} X^{μ\nu})? In that case you would get a tensor proportional to eta. This is obviously not what you were thinking, but if someone saw that expression and didn't know that you were trying to make X_{\mu\nu}, they might think you meant to make a tensor proportional to eta.

So just a good rule of thumb, never repeat an index unless it is supposed to be summed.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top