Contraction of an asymmetric tensor?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the contraction of an asymmetric tensor A^{\mu\nu} with a corresponding tensor a_{\mu\nu}. The original poster expresses confusion about how the symmetric part of the tensor appears to vanish during contraction, despite understanding that A^{\mu\nu} can be decomposed into symmetric and anti-symmetric components. A correction is made regarding a notation error, clarifying that a^{\mu\nu} is anti-symmetric, which is crucial to understanding the contraction process. The key point is that the symmetric part does not contribute to the contraction due to the properties of anti-symmetry. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of correctly interpreting tensor properties in mathematical expressions.
Dixanadu
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Hey guys,

So in my notes I've got this statement written:

If tensor with no symmetry properties, A^{\mu\nu}, contracts to a_{\mu\nu}, we can write this as A^{\mu\nu}a_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}a_{\mu\nu}(A^{\mu\nu}-A^{\nu\mu}) as a_{\mu\nu} (A^{\mu\nu}+A^{\nu\mu}) = 0. So I don't see how the symmetric part contracts to 0.

*Note* I do also have written that a^{\mu\nu}=-a^{\nu\mu} but I am not sure if this is relevant.

I understand that you can decompose the tensor A^{\mu\nu} into the sum of symmetric and anti-symmetric parts, but i don't see why the symmetric part vanishes under contraction.

If someone could explain I'd be very grateful - thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Dixanadu said:
Hey guys,

So in my notes I've got this statement written:

If tensor with no symmetry properties, A^{\mu\nu}, contracts to a_{\mu\nu}, we can write this as A^{\mu\nu}a_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}a_{\mu\nu}(A^{\mu\nu}-B^{\nu\mu}) as a_{\mu\nu} (A^{\mu\nu}+A^{\nu\mu}) = 0. So I don't see how the symmetric part contracts to 0.

*Note* I do also have written that a^{\mu\nu}=-a^{\nu\mu} but I am not sure if this is relevant.

I understand that you can decompose the tensor A^{\mu\nu} into the sum of symmetric and anti-symmetric parts, but i don't see why the symmetric part vanishes under contraction.

If someone could explain I'd be very grateful - thank you!
Your notes are inaccurate. What you tried to note down is probably:
If a^{\mu\nu}=-a^{\nu\mu}, then A^{\mu\nu}a_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}a_{\mu\nu}(A^{\mu\nu}-A^{\nu\mu}),
for any A^{\mu\nu}.
 
Whoops that B was meant to be an A -- error fixed! but what do you mean by inaccurate exactly? what part is wrong?
 
my2cts said:
Your notes are inaccurate. What you tried to note down is probably:
If a^{\mu\nu}=-a^{\nu\mu}, then A^{\mu\nu}a_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}a_{\mu\nu}(A^{\mu\nu}-A^{\nu\mu}),
for any A^{\mu\nu}.
Dixanadu said:
Whoops that B was meant to be an A -- error fixed! but what do you mean by inaccurate exactly? what part is wrong?
The part where you wrote B instead of A ?
 
Yes -- sorry about that!
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top