Cross product of two 4-Vectors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of taking the cross product of two 4-vectors, specifically in the context of physics and its application to finding the magnetic field of a black hole. Participants explore the mathematical and conceptual implications of such an operation, including its definitions and limitations in higher dimensions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the purpose of taking a cross product of 4-vectors, noting that the vector cross product is traditionally defined only in 3D space.
  • Another participant mentions that the cross product can be defined in higher dimensions, specifically 7 dimensions, but does not clarify its relevance to 4-vectors.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about how to incorporate the time component (t) in the context of the triple product of spatial components.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the operation being proposed, with an analogy drawn to adding circles, suggesting that the operation may not be meaningful.
  • It is noted that in four dimensions, one can use the wedge product or exterior product, which results in a bi-vector rather than another 4-vector, and this involves a rank-2 anti-symmetric tensor.
  • A participant presents a mathematical expression for a cross product in 6 dimensions, but it is unclear how this relates to the original question about 4-vectors.
  • Another participant urges the original poster to clarify their ultimate goal, suggesting that the question may stem from a misunderstanding of the underlying problem.
  • The original poster states their intention to find the magnetic field of a black hole using the cross product of two 4-vectors.
  • A later reply explains that the magnetic field is frame dependent and outlines a more complex approach involving the covariant electromagnetic field tensor and the metric tensor, emphasizing the need for a proper observer's 4-velocity to split the field into electric and magnetic components.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility and meaning of taking a cross product of 4-vectors, with some arguing that it is not well-defined while others suggest alternative mathematical constructs. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the appropriate method to achieve the original poster's goal.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the unclear definitions of operations on 4-vectors, the dependence on the context of the problem, and the unresolved mathematical steps related to the proposed cross product and its implications in higher dimensions.

Philosophaie
Messages
456
Reaction score
0
How do you take the cross product of two 4-Vectors?

\vec{r} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}c*t & x & y & z \end{array} \right)
\vec{v} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}c & vx & vy & vz \end{array} \right)
\vec{v} \times \vec{r} = ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Actually it's also well defined non-trivially for 7 dimensions.
 
I can do a Triple Product of xyz. I just do not know what to do with the t.

The triple product is:v \times r = \bar{x}*(vy*z-vz*y) + \bar{y}*(vz*x-vx*z) + \bar{z}*(vx*y-vy*x)
 
Still not clear what you are trying to accomplish with the 4-vectors here.
 
Philosophaie, what your asking is how to apply an operation which is not defined for the objects you have produced. It's analogous to me asking you "how do I add two circles together?" It doesn't make any sense to ask the question.

If you give the context under which you want to ask this kind of question, we can probably identify what you actually want to do with your two vectors.
 
As UltrafastPED said, the vector cross product really only works in three dimensions. In four dimensions, you can form what is called the "wedge product" or "exterior product" of two four vectors, but this object will not be another four-vector. It will be a different geometric object referred to a bi-vector. This object can be defined with a rank-2 anti-symmetric tensor, and it has six components instead of just four.
 
I only got 6 dimensions. Check my math:
\vec{v} \times \vec{r} = 2*(v_z*c*t-c*z)*\bar{x}\bar{y}+2*(v_y*c*t-c*y)*\bar{x}\bar{z}+2*(v_x*c*t-c*x)*\bar{y}\bar{z}+2*\bar{t}*(\bar{x}*(v_x*y-y-v_y*x)+\bar{y}*(v_z*x-v_x*z)+\bar{z}*(v_x*y-v_y*x))
 
Before we go any further, what are you trying to do, Philosophaie? You have a penchant for asking "XY" questions. In trying to solve problem X you run into a problem with Y. So you ask about Y. The problem is that in an "XY" question, Y is typically a dead end. The ultimate problem isn't how to solve Y. The problem is how to solve X, and you haven't told us what X is.
 
  • #10
I am just looking for an easy way to take the cross product of two 4-vectors to find the Magnetic Field of a Black Hole.
 
  • #11
Well that's definitely not how you would go about doing it. For one, the magnetic field is frame dependent. Secondly, you have to first find the covariant electromagnetic field tensor ##F_{ab}## by solving Maxwell's equations, which will be coupled to the metric tensor ##g_{ab}## describing the electrovacuum exterior to the black hole. Once you have ##F_{ab}## you must choose an observer with 4-velocity ##u^a## with respect to whom you can split ##F_{ab}## into the electric and magnetic field. The formulas are ##E^a = F^{a}{}{}_{b}u^b## and ##B^a = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{abcd}u_b F_{cd}## where ##\epsilon^{abcd}## is the natural volume element on space-time; ##\epsilon^{abcd}u_b## is (up to a sign) the 3-dimensional levi-civita symbol which you use to take cross products in the 3-space orthogonal to ##u^a##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K