Irreducible representation of tensor field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the decomposition of a tensor field \( B^{\alpha\beta} \) as presented in Mark Srednicki's "Quantum Field Theory." Participants explore the reasoning behind the explicit addition of a trace term in the decomposition, contrasting it with the typical treatment of symmetric and antisymmetric components of tensors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of the explicit trace term in the decomposition of the tensor field, suggesting that the trace is usually included in the symmetric part.
  • Another participant explains that when considering the orthogonal group, the irreducible representations change, and the operation of contraction (forming a trace) commutes with orthogonal transformations.
  • A later reply clarifies that the symmetric part can be decomposed into a traceless component and a trace term, indicating that the trace term is necessary for a complete representation of the tensor.
  • One participant acknowledges understanding the explanation provided, indicating engagement with the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and role of the trace term in the tensor decomposition, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the definitions of symmetric and antisymmetric components and the conditions under which the trace term is considered necessary. There is also an implication that the treatment may vary based on the context of the group being considered.

su-ki
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In Mark Srednicki's book "Quantum Field Theory"
He says that a tensor field [itex]B^{αβ}[/itex] with no particular symmetry can be written as :-

[itex]B^{αβ} = A^{αβ} + S^{αβ} + (1/4) g^{αβ} T(x)[/itex] Equn. 33.6

where A - Antisymmetric, S = symmetric and T(x) = trace of [itex]B^{αβ}[/itex] .

Is there any reason for explicit addition of trace term ?
Coz generally we split things into symmetric and antisymmetric parts and trace is included in symmetric part.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you're talking about the general linear group GL(n), the irreducible representations are the tensors whose indices have been symmetrized in a particular way. When you go to the orthogonal group, there are fewer transformations in the group, and some of these representations are no longer irreducible. The operation of contraction (forming a trace) commutes with the orthogonal transformations.
 
su-ki said:
In Mark Srednicki's book "Quantum Field Theory"
He says that a tensor field [itex]B^{αβ}[/itex] with no particular symmetry can be written as :-

[itex]B^{αβ} = A^{αβ} + S^{αβ} + (1/4) g^{αβ} T(x)[/itex] Equn. 33.6

where A - Antisymmetric, S = symmetric and T(x) = trace of [itex]B^{αβ}[/itex] .

Is there any reason for explicit addition of trace term ?
Coz generally we split things into symmetric and antisymmetric parts and trace is included in symmetric part.


This is true only if the symmetric part is traceless. In general, for any rank-2 tensor, we write
[tex]B^{ ab } = B^{ (ab) } + B^{ [ab] } .[/tex]
Then we take the symmetric part and decompose it as
[tex] B^{ (ab) } = \left( B^{ (ab) } - \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } g^{ ab } B \right) + \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } g^{ ab } B .[/tex]
The tensor (call it [itex]S^{ ab }[/itex]) in the bracket on the left-hand side is symmetric and traceless, because
[tex]B = \mbox{ Tr } ( B^{ (ab) } ) = g_{ ab } B^{ (ab) }[/tex]
So, our original tensor can now be written as
[tex] B^{ ab } = A^{ ab } + S^{ ab } + \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } g^{ ab } B ,[/tex]
where [itex]A^{ ab } = - A^{ ba } \equiv B^{ [ab] }[/itex]

See posts #24 and 25 in

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=192572&page=2

Sam
 
yea, i got just it, thank u :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K