Geometric Product: Definition and Calculation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JonnyMaddox
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometric Product
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the geometric product in geometric algebra, specifically the calculations involving the expressions ab = a · b + a ∧ b and ba = a · b - a ∧ b. Participants clarify that the term (a · b)(ab + ba) simplifies to 2(a · b)², leading to the conclusion that the final expression is -a²b²sin²(φ). The contraction property and the inner product are also discussed, emphasizing the relationship between the geometric product and the dot product.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of geometric algebra concepts
  • Familiarity with the geometric product and its properties
  • Knowledge of inner products and their geometric interpretations
  • Basic trigonometric identities, particularly sine and cosine functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the geometric product in detail
  • Learn about the contraction property in geometric algebra
  • Explore the relationship between the geometric product and the dot product
  • Investigate applications of geometric algebra in physics, particularly in mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are interested in advanced algebraic structures and their applications in various fields, particularly those studying geometric algebra.

JonnyMaddox
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Hey JO,
I'm reading a book on geometric algebra and in the beginning (there was light, jk) a simple calculation is shown:
Geometric product is defined as:
ab = a \cdot b + a \wedge b
or
ba = a \cdot b - a\wedge b


Now
(a\wedge b)(a \wedge b)=(ab-a \cdot b)(a\cdot b - ba)
=-ab^{2}a-(a \cdot b)^{2}+a \cdot b(ab+ba)
=(a \cdot b)^{2}-a^{2}b^{2}
=-a^{2}b^{2}sin^{2}(\phi)

I think this term a \cdot b(ab+ba) has to vanish somehow, but it is <br /> (a\cdot b)^{2} and that doesn't make sense :( Any suggestions?

Ok I know the answer, the term is 2(a\cdot b)^{2}. But thank you for your attention !
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
So how did you get from the next to last step to your solution?
 
\newcommand{\a}{\boldsymbol a}\newcommand{\b}{\boldsymbol b}
jedishrfu said:
So how did you get from the next to last step to your solution?

From the original post I'm going to assume the question is answered, so here are the steps to the final solution for anyone interested (noting that I've only done a bit of work with geometric algebra after seeing a talk by David Hestenes...):

The quantity \a\b + \b\a reduces to 2\a\cdot\b as stated, so the last term becomes (\a\cdot\b)(2\a\cdot\b) or 2(\a\cdot\b)^2. The whole RHS then reduces to (\a\cdot\b)^2 - \a^2\b^2.

The contraction property states that \a\a = \a^2 = |\a|^2, so this becomes |\a\cdot\b|^2 - a^2b^2. The dot operator is just the inner product, so |\a\cdot\b| = ab\cos\phi. Using the Pythagorean identity (there may be a more geometric algebra way to do this, but it's late and I am tired), the whole thing then reduces to -a^2b^2\sin^2\phi.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thanks for the explanation, I was thinking the math was more involved with some condition we weren't told about.
 
No problem, it gave me a reason to dig out my copy of New Foundations for Classical Mechanics and play with that. :D
 
Hi, again I have a problem with the geometric product:

In the book the unit trivector is defined like this: (e_{1}e_{2})e_{3}=e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}
But that would mean (e_{1}e_{2})e_{3}= (e_{1} \wedge e_{2})\cdot e_{3}+(e_{1} \wedge e_{2} \wedge e_{3}) But I thougt it is just e_{1} \wedge e_{2} \wedge e_{3}? I could somehow imagine in my head that the plane spanned by e_{1} \wedge e_{2} is perpendicular to the line e_{3} but I'm not sure that it works like that. Is that right? Would make sense.
Ok but why is this true (e_{1}\wedge e_{2})e_{1}=(-e_{2}e_{1})e_{1}=-e_{2}e_{1}e_{1}=-e_{2} because (e_{1}\wedge e_{2})e_{1}=(e_{1} \wedge e_{2})\cdot e_{1}+ e_{1}\wedge e_{2} \wedge e_{1} where the last term is zero. I don't know how the term e_{1} \wedge e_{2} interacts as dot product with e_{1}. Similar is (e_{1}\wedge e_{2})(e_{2}\wedge e_{3})=e_{1}e_{3} why isn't this just zero? Because (e_{1}\wedge e_{2})(e_{2} \wedge e_{3})=(e_{1}\wedge e_{2}) \cdot (e_{2} \wedge e_{3})+e_{1}\wedge e_{2} \wedge e_{2} \wedge e_{3} any help?
Greets
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
905
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
877
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K