How Do You Expand the Antisymmetrized Tensor \( T_{1234} \)?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PhyAmateur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expansion of the antisymmetrized tensor \( T_{1234} \). Participants explore the mathematical formulation and implications of antisymmetrization, particularly in the context of tensors with multiple indices. The conversation includes technical explanations, clarifications of notation, and the application of permutation concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines antisymmetrization for two indices as \( T_{12} = \frac{1}{2} (T_1 T_2 - T_2 T_1) \) but later clarifies that the correct notation is \( T_{[12]} = \frac{1}{2} (T_{12} - T_{21}) \).
  • Another participant explains the general rule for expanding \( T_{[1234]} \) involves summing components based on permutations, with a factor of \( \frac{1}{n!} \) for \( n \) indices.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of odd and even swaps, with one participant suggesting counting swaps needed to reach a permutation from the starting position.
  • One participant mentions that antisymmetrization can be expressed using the Levi-Civita symbol and permutations, indicating that for four indices, there are 24 terms to consider.
  • Concerns are raised about whether applying the Levi-Civita symbol results in a scalar rather than a tensor, with differing opinions on the implications of this contraction.
  • Another participant asserts that the object \( T_{12...n} \) is a number, not a tensor, when discussing the right-hand side of the antisymmetrization expression.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct notation for antisymmetrization and the implications of using the Levi-Civita symbol. The discussion remains unresolved regarding whether certain expressions yield tensors or scalars, indicating a lack of consensus on these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of notation and the complexity of permutations in antisymmetrization, which may lead to confusion. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in mathematical expressions and the potential for multiple interpretations.

PhyAmateur
Messages
103
Reaction score
2
If $$T_{12} = \frac{1}{2} {(T_1 T_2 - T_2 T_1)}$$

That mean antisymmetrization.

How would I expand then $$T_{1234}$$ I find it complicated, it is written on wikipedia for the general case but I can't still deal with these general notations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_tensor, I mean I can't yet expand it. You would help me if you could expand it or guide me through expanding it using {1,2,3,4} rather than {i,j,k,l} and kronocker delta and those stuff.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PhyAmateur said:
If
##T_{12} = \frac{1}{2} {(T_1 T_2 - T_2 T_1)}​

That mean antisymmetrization.

No; antisymmetrization is this:

$$
T_{[12]} = \frac{1}{2} \left( T_{12} - T_{21} \right)
$$

Perhaps that is what you meant to write down; but care with notation is important, particularly if you are trying to expand out more complicated cases.

PhyAmateur said:
How would I expand then
##T_{1234}##​

The general rule is that you add together all the components with the same index, with a plus sign in front of components whose indexes are an even permutation, and a minus sign in front of components whose indexes are an odd permutation. Then you put a factor of 1 / n! in front, where n is the number of indexes.

It should be obvious that what I wrote down for ##T_{[12]}## above (note that I put brackets around the indexes; that is the standard notation for antisymmetrization) satisfies the general rule just given.

For three indexes, we would have

$$
T_{[123]} = \frac{1}{6} \left( T_{123} - T_{132} + T_{231} - T_{213} + T_{312} - T_{321} \right)
$$

You should be able to expand out ##T_{[1234]}## using the general rule as above. Note that there will be 4! = 24 terms. The number of terms is the reason more compact notation for this was invented.
 
I linked this answer in the wikipedia link, I was hoping you could help me with the 4 termed one because I can't understand what an odd swap is or an even one?
 
Count the number of swaps needed to get there from the start position. Is it odd or even?

Start position is 1234
1243 is odd
2143 is even
etc.
 
Swaps of pairs of indices, that is.

Apologies for double post - the edit function is not working on my phone for some reason.
 
In general it depends on what you want to antisymmetrize. If you want to antisymmetrize it to all the indices, you have to apply:
\frac{1}{N!} \epsilon^{abcd} T_{abcd}.
Where N for 4 indices is 4.

You can check out that this is true for the 2 indices too...
\frac{1}{2!} \epsilon^{ab} T_{ab} = \frac{1}{2} [ T_{12} - T_{21} ] = T_{[12]}

In general antisymmetrization can be seen as using Permutations, and that's the origin of the factor N! ... Because for N indices, you can have N! number of permutations (the number of the elements of the Symmetric Group S_N ).

If you have then to write:
T_{[12...n]} = \frac{1}{N!} \epsilon^{i_1, i_2, ... , i_n } T_{i_1, i_2 , ... , i_n}

In an almost similar way you can work out the antisymmetrization of less than all the indices.

For the 4 then you have a lot, because the symmetric group has 24 elements (so you have 24 terms to put with + or - ...)
 
Last edited:
ChrisVer said:
In general it depends on what you want to antisymmetrize. If you want to antisymmetrize it to all the indices, you have to apply:
\frac{1}{N!} \epsilon^{abcd} T_{abcd}.
Where N for 4 indices is 4.

Wouldn't this be a full contraction, and thereby not result in a tensor, but a scalar?
 
Matterwave said:
Wouldn't this be a full contraction, and thereby not result in a tensor, but a scalar?

Well the object T_{12...n} is a number, not a tensor.
If you put tensor in the game, like writing : T_{[ab...m]} then on the righthand side you have to put the appropriate Levi-Civita: T_{[a_1 a_2 ... a_i]} = \frac{1}{(n-i)!} \epsilon_{a_1 a_2 ... a_i b_1 b_2 ... b_{n-i}} \frac{1}{i!} \epsilon^{i_1 i_2 ... i_i b_1 b_2 ... b_{n-i}} T_{i_1 i_2 ... i_i}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K