Geometric Product: Definition and Calculation

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and calculation of the geometric product in geometric algebra. Participants explore various mathematical expressions and properties related to the geometric product, including specific calculations and definitions of geometric entities such as trivectors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation involving the geometric product and expresses confusion over a term in the equation, later resolving their own query.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the steps leading to the final solution presented by the first participant.
  • A third participant outlines the reduction of terms in the geometric product, explaining the contraction property and relating it to the inner product.
  • A different participant questions the definition of the unit trivector and its implications, expressing uncertainty about the interaction of geometric entities in the context of the geometric product.
  • The same participant raises additional questions about specific interactions between geometric products and dot products, seeking further clarification on the behavior of these operations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement on the calculations and definitions presented. Some questions remain unresolved, particularly regarding the interactions of geometric products and dot products.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions or definitions that may affect the understanding of the geometric product and its properties. Specific mathematical steps and interactions are not fully resolved, leading to ongoing questions.

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
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
950
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K