A Decomposing Rank-2 Tensors in Dirac's "General Theory of Relativity

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kostik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensors
Kostik
Messages
269
Reaction score
32
TL;DR Summary
Dirac says that a general rank-2 tensor ## T^{\mu\nu} ## can be decomposed as ## A^\mu B^\nu + A'^\mu B'^\nu + A''^\mu B''^\nu + \cdots\, ##. Is this obvious?
Dirac's book "General Theory of Relativity" says on p. 2 that a general rank-2 tensor can be written as a sum of outer products: $$ T^{\mu\nu} = A^\mu B^\nu + A'^\mu B'^\nu + A''^\mu B''^\nu + \cdots $$ Importantly, he repeats this on p. 18, in developing the covariant derivative, where he mentions that a tensor ## T_{\mu\nu} ## is "expressible as a sum of terms like ## A_\mu B_\nu ##".

Is this obvious? Can someone show or explain this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kostik said:
TL;DR Summary: Dirac says that a general rank-2 tensor can be decomposed: ##T^\mu\nu = A^\mu B^\nu + A'^\mu B'^\nu + A''^\mu B''^\nu + ...##. Is this obvious?

Dirac's book "General Theory of Relativity" says on p. 2 that a general rank-2 tensor can be written as a sum of outer products:

$$T^\mu\nu = A^\mu B^\nu + A'^\mu B'^\nu + A''^\mu B''^\nu + ...$$

Importantly, he repeats this on p. 18, in developing the covariant derivative, where he mentions that a tensor ##T_\mu\nu$ is "expressible as a sum of terms like $A_\muB_\nu##".

Is this obvious? Can someone show or explain this?
By definition, a tensor of rank two can be written as
$$
T = T^{\mu\nu} e_\mu \otimes e_\nu
$$
We can introduce the vectors ##A^\nu = T^{\mu\nu} e_\mu## and ##B_\nu = e_\nu## (note that here ##\nu## is being used as a counter rather than a component index) and therefore
$$
T = A^\nu \otimes B_\nu
$$
 
I'm not familiar with your notation, I wonder if Dirac's decomposition can be explained using only his definition of tensors.
 
Last edited:
Kostik said:
I added the missing braces, but the LaTex still doesn't seem to be working in the original post.
It's a known issue when you make the first post to use LaTeX (OP or reply) on a page. The parser doesn't get loaded until you refresh the page. Your LaTeX looks fine to me, and will look fine to you once you've hit refresh.
 
Ibix said:
It's a known issue when you make the first post to use LaTeX (OP or reply) on a page. The parser doesn't get loaded until you refresh the page. Your LaTeX looks fine to me, and will look fine to you once you've hit refresh.
Aha, yes, I see it now.
 
Oh, I think it's actually fairly straightforward. Write (showing the summation explicitly): $$T^{\mu\nu}=\sum_{\lambda,\kappa}T^{\lambda\kappa}{\delta_\lambda}^\mu{\delta_\kappa}^\nu \,\,\,\,\text{(no Einstein summation)}$$ Then ##A^\mu = T^{\lambda\kappa}{\delta_\lambda}^\mu## (not summed over ##\lambda##) and ##B^\nu={\delta_\kappa}^\nu##. (Regard ##\lambda## and ##\kappa## as fixed.) Since everything in sight is a tensor, the ##A^\mu## and ##B^\nu## are obviously vectors (no need to worry about constructing a non-vector).
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top