I How Can Tensors Be Evaluated to Scalars?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter LarryS
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scalars Tensors
LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
357
Reaction score
33
Many descriptions of tensors define them to be these kind of multidimensional arrays of numbers, as generalizations of vectors and matrices, that transform in a certain way. But, mathematically, tensors are functions whose domains are these multidimensional arrays and whose codomains/ranges are the real numbers.

My question: Is there a general rule to evaluate any tensor, to determine the real number that is assigned to it? Perhaps by successive contractions, until it becomes a scalar?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. You cannot represent any function as a single real number (unless the domain is a single point or the function is a constant). The number depends on the arguments.
 
LarryS said:
the real number that is assigned to it?
I am not sure what you mean by this. There is a real number assigned to ##T^{\mu\nu…}a_\mu b_\nu …## but there is no number assigned to ##T^{\mu\nu…}##
 
  • Like
Likes Jaime Rudas
Dale said:
I am not sure what you mean by this. There is a real number assigned to ##T^{\mu\nu…}a_\mu b_\nu …## but there is no number assigned to ##T^{\mu\nu…}##
I think I see where you are going. I probably need to read/study this subject a little further.
 
LarryS said:
Perhaps by successive contractions, until it becomes a scalar?
That is the only way to get a scalar from a tensor, yes: by contracting it, either with itself or with appropriate other tensors, so that there are no free indexes left and you have a scalar.

What are usually called the "components" of a tensor can be viewed as contractions of that tensor with appropriate combinations of basis vectors and covectors of a particular reference frame.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, LarryS, Ibix and 1 other person
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
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...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top