Explicit and Implicit Matrix Notation Question

Alex86
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Ok so this is a fairly stupid question I'm sure, but I'm not quite clear about the following:

Given a Lorentz transformation we require the following to hold:

g_{\sigma\rho}\Lambda^{\sigma}_{\mu}\Lambda^{\rho}_{\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}

In other notation this is written:

\Lambda^{T}g\Lambda = g

where \Lambda \in O(1,3) and g is the Minkowski metric.

The first use of tensor notation is fine, however I am unsure why in the second expression the first \Lambda is transposed?

Any help greatly appreciated,
Alex
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In the first sum over sigma, the "rows" of g are summed with the "rows" of lambda. In matrix multiplication, rows are summed with columns. If we write lambda and g as matrices and want to express the same product as a matrix multiplication, then in order for the correct components to be multiplied, we must transpose lambda.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top