Inner product of two tensors

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick16
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor calculus
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inner product of two rank-2 tensors as presented in Bernacchi's book "Tensors made easy." Participants explore the nature of tensor contractions, specifically questioning why the inner product cannot yield a scalar result and examining the implications of double contractions versus single contractions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the inner product of two rank-2 tensors cannot be a scalar, presenting an equation that suggests a scalar result through double contraction.
  • Another participant proposes that the inner product is typically defined as a single contraction between tensor indices, implying that the scalar result presented is a double contraction, which may not align with standard definitions.
  • A participant clarifies that double contractions are valid and can be useful, citing an example from the Lagrangian of the electromagnetic field.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of Bernacchi's statement regarding residual indices in the context of inner products, with some participants suggesting a misunderstanding of the author's intent.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in their earlier notation, indicating a need for clarity in distinguishing between outer and inner products.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of tensor contractions, with some supporting the validity of double contractions while others emphasize the conventional definition of inner products. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these differing interpretations.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the definitions of inner products and contractions, as well as the potential for misunderstanding the author's intent in the book. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the symmetry of tensors for uniqueness in contractions.

Rick16
Messages
158
Reaction score
46
TL;DR
Why can't the inner product of two tensors be a scalar?
I am trying to learn tensor calculus with Bernacchi's book "Tensors made easy". For the inner product of two rank-2 tensors he gets four different results, each of them a rank-2 tensor. Why can't there be a fifth solution, a scalar? What is wrong with the following equation?
$$\mathbf A \cdot \mathbf B = (A_{\mu\nu} \tilde e^\mu \tilde e^\nu)\cdot(B^{\alpha\beta}\vec e_\alpha \vec e_\beta)=A_{\mu\nu}B^{\alpha\beta} \tilde e^\mu \tilde e^\nu\vec e_\alpha \vec e_\beta=A_{\mu\nu}B^{\alpha\beta}\delta^\mu_\alpha\delta^\nu_\beta=A_{\alpha\beta}B^{\alpha\beta}=C,~i.e.~a~scalar$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not have the book you are referring to, but I would assume they introduce an inner product as a single contraction between two tensor indices. In that case, your scalar is not a single, but a double, contraction. That does not mean it may not be an interesting quantity though.

Do note that the full contraction is also not unique unless one of the tensors is symmetric. You have a choice in which indices you contract with each other.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
So there is nothing wrong with the double contraction? Bernacchi writes about the inner tensor product "Rank ##\geq## 2 tensors leave residual indexes". This looked to me like they always must leave residual indexes. I guess he had only single contractions in mind and I misunderstood that he meant inner products in general.
 
No, there is nothing wrong with double contractions. They can often be useful. Consider for example the Lagrangian of the electromagnetic field, which contains the term ##F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}/4## where ##F## is the electromagnetic field tensor.
 
Thank you very much for clarifying this.
 
Rick16 said:
TL;DR Summary: Why can't the inner product of two tensors be a scalar?

I am trying to learn tensor calculus with Bernacchi's book "Tensors made easy". For the inner product of two rank-2 tensors he gets four different results, each of them a rank-2 tensor. Why can't there be a fifth solution, a scalar? What is wrong with the following equation?
$$\mathbf A \cdot \mathbf B = (A_{\mu\nu} \tilde e^\mu \tilde e^\nu)\cdot(B^{\alpha\beta}\vec e_\alpha \vec e_\beta)=A_{\mu\nu}B^{\alpha\beta} \tilde e^\mu \tilde e^\nu\vec e_\alpha \vec e_\beta=A_{\mu\nu}B^{\alpha\beta}\delta^\mu_\alpha\delta^\nu_\beta=A_{\alpha\beta}B^{\alpha\beta}=C,~i.e.~a~scalar$$
Shouldn't that be the double-dot product?
 
Chestermiller said:
Shouldn't that be the double-dot product?
Yes, I wrote that wrong. The way I wrote the 3rd term, it looks like an outer product. I guess it should be written ##A_{\mu\nu}B^{\alpha\beta}\tilde e^\mu \tilde e^\nu(\vec e_\alpha \vec e_\beta)##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
966
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K