Deriving tensor transformation laws

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation laws of tensors under coordinate transformations, specifically focusing on the derivation of these laws from the definition of tensors as multilinear maps. Participants explore the implications of invariance in tensor definitions and the relationships between different representations of tensors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines a tensor and investigates its transformation under arbitrary coordinate transformations, applying the chain rule for partial derivatives.
  • Another participant confirms that the transformation of the tensor as presented is correct and notes that the base tensors form a complete and linearly independent basis.
  • A later reply points out a potential issue with the notation in one of the equations, suggesting that there are too many indices and that adjustments are necessary for clarity.
  • Further elaboration is provided on how to derive the transformation law using the invariance of the tensor under changes in basis, leading to a reformulation of the tensor components.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While some participants agree on the correctness of the transformation as presented, there is a disagreement regarding the notation and clarity of the expressions used. The discussion remains unresolved in terms of the best approach to express the transformation laws clearly.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the notation used in the equations, particularly concerning the indices in the transformation expressions. Participants have not reached a consensus on the most intuitive way to present the transformation laws.

Daniel_C
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
I'm attempting to understand how the definition of a tensor in terms of how it transforms arises from demanding invariance of the tensor when we define it as a multilinear map
Hi, I'm worried I've got a grave misunderstanding. Also, throughout this post, a prime mark (') will indicate the transformed versions of my tensor, coordinates, etc.

I'm going to define a tensor.

$$T^\mu_\nu \partial_\mu \otimes dx^\nu$$

Now I'd like to investigate how the tensor transforms under an arbitrary coordinate transformation where I require that the tensor is invariant under the coordinate transformation. In order to understand how partial-mu transforms, I'm going to apply the chain rule for partial derivatives.

$$\begin{equation} \partial'_\alpha = \frac{\partial}{\partial x'^\alpha} = \frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial x'^\alpha}\partial_\mu \end{equation}$$

Similarly, I can write down how the basis one-forms transform.

$$\begin{equation} dx'^\alpha = \frac{\partial x'^\alpha}{\partial x^\mu} dx^\mu \end{equation}$$

Therefore, the basis of my tensor transforms like this:

$$\begin{equation} T'^\alpha_\beta \partial'_\alpha \otimes dx'^\beta = T^\mu_\nu \frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial x'^\alpha} \partial_\mu \otimes \frac{\partial x'^\alpha}{\partial x^\mu} dx^\nu \end{equation}$$

Which mirrors my more familiar definition of a tensor in terms of how it's components transform:

$$\begin{equation} T'^\alpha_\beta = \frac{\partial x'^\alpha}{\partial x^\mu}\frac{\partial x^\nu}{\partial x'^\beta} T^\mu_\nu \end{equation}$$

Is it correct to write down the transformation of the tensor in the way I did in equation (3)? Is this equivalent to equation (4)?

Please help me if I've had a misunderstanding. Thank you very much for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Daniel_C said:
Summary: I'm attempting to understand how the definition of a tensor in terms of how it transforms arises from demanding invariance of the tensor when we define it as a multilinear map

Is it correct to write down the transformation of the tensor in the way I did in equation (3)? Is this equivalent to equation (4)?
Yes. Yes (the base tensors ##\partial_\mu \otimes dx^\nu## form a complete and linearly independent basis).

Edit: Also note that the tensor product is linear and that the partial derivatives are just numbers that you can move out of it.
 
Orodruin said:
Yes. Yes (the base tensors ##\partial_\mu \otimes dx^\nu## form a complete and linearly independent basis).

Edit: Also note that the tensor product is linear and that the partial derivatives are just numbers that you can move out of it.

Thanks so much for the quick reply!
 
Daniel_C said:
Therefore, the basis of my tensor transforms like this:

$$T'^\alpha_\beta \partial'_\alpha \otimes dx'^\beta = T^\mu_\nu \frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial x'^\alpha} \partial_\mu \otimes \frac{\partial x'^\alpha}{\partial x^\mu} dx^\nu$$...
Is it correct to write down the transformation of the tensor in the way I did in equation (3)? Is this equivalent to equation (4)?
Note that the RHS of your equation 3 is not a valid expression as you have four ##\mu## indices. You need to change either the inner two ##\mu##’s or the outer two for this to make sense. But even then, if you’re wanting to use equations 1 and 2 and the fact that a tensor remains the same despite a change in basis in order to derive eq. 4, then this might be a more intuitive approach:
$$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbf T = T^{\bar \alpha}_{\bar \beta} ~ \partial_{\bar \alpha} \otimes dx^{\bar \beta} & = T^{\bar \alpha}_{\bar \beta} (\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial \bar x^{\bar \alpha}} \partial_\mu ) \otimes (\frac{\partial \bar x^{\bar \beta}}{\partial x^\nu} dx^\nu) \\
& = (T^{\bar \alpha}_{\bar \beta} \frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial \bar x^{\bar \alpha}} \frac{\partial \bar x^{\bar \beta}}{\partial x^\nu}) \partial_\mu \otimes dx^\nu
\end{split} \tag{5}
\end{equation*}
$$And because ##\mathbf T## is unchanged by a change in basis, we can say that
$$T^{\bar \alpha}_{\bar \beta} ~ \partial_{\bar \alpha} \otimes dx^{\bar \beta} = T^\mu_\nu ~ \partial_\mu \otimes dx^\nu$$
And therefore
$$T^\mu_\nu = T^{\bar \alpha}_{\bar \beta} \frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial \bar x^{\bar \alpha}} \frac{\partial \bar x^{\bar \beta}}{\partial x^\nu}$$
We can rearrange like we did in the 2nd line of eq. 5 precisely because of the reason @Orodruin gave in the edit of his post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
942
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
941
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K