Is there a mistake in this tensor multiplication problem?

DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
Homework Statement
Show that
epsilon_{ijkl} ( M^{ij} N^{kl} + N^{ij} M^{kl}) = 0
Relevant Equations
epsilon is the 4D anti-symmetric Levi-Cevita tensor. M and N are also anti-symmetric tensors.
ep_{ijkl} M^{ij} N^{kl} + ep_{ijkl}N^{ij} M^{kl}
The second term can be rewritten with indices swapped
ep_{klij} N^{kl}M^{ij}
Shuffle indices around in epsilon
ep{klij} = ep{ijkl}
Therefore the expression becomes
2ep_{ijkl}M^{ij}N^{kl}
Not zero.
What is wrong here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I tried, but got the same result as you did. Are you sure its not supposed to be
##\epsilon_{ijkl} ( M^{ij} N^{kl} - N^{ij} M^{kl}) = 0##?
What I did was to write everything out, using all even permutations of 1,2,3,4:
{1,2,3,4}, {1,3,4,2}, {1,4,2,3}, {2,1,4,3}, {2,3,1,4}, {2,4,3,1}, {3,1,2,4}, {3,2,4,1}, {3,4,1,2}, {4,1,3,2}, {4,2,1,3}, {4,3,2,1}
and all odd ones:
{1,2,4,3}, {1,3,2,4}, {1,4,3,2}, {2,1,3,4}, {3,2,1,4}, {4,2,3,1}, {2,3,4,1}, {2,4,1,3}, {3,1,4,2}, {3,4,2,1}, {4,1,2,3}, {4,3,1,2}
and the fact that ##M## and ##N## are anti-symmetrical, i.e. ##M^{12}= - M^{21}## etc.
 
ok i think i have solid reasoning here:

Suppose ##C^{ij} = M^{ij} + N^{ij}##

From symmetry and antisymmetry we have:

##\epsilon_{ijkl} C^{ij}C^{kl} = 0##

Also if you foil the CC product in terms of M and N you get ##C^{ij}C^{kl} = M^{ij}M^{kl} + N^{ij}N^{kl} + M^{ij}N^{kl} + N^{ij}M^{kl}##

The MM and NN terms are zero for the same reason the CC product is when multiplied by epsilon.

So this demands that

##\epsilon_{ijkl} (M^{ij}N^{kl} + N^{ij}M^{kl}) = 0##

Can someone please verify?
 
DuckAmuck said:
ok i think i have solid reasoning here:

Suppose ##C^{ij} = M^{ij} + N^{ij}##

From symmetry and antisymmetry we have:

##\epsilon_{ijkl} C^{ij}C^{kl} = 0##

Also if you foil the CC product in terms of M and N you get ##C^{ij}C^{kl} = M^{ij}M^{kl} + N^{ij}N^{kl} + M^{ij}N^{kl} + N^{ij}M^{kl}##

The MM and NN terms are zero for the same reason the CC product is when multiplied by epsilon.

So this demands that

##\epsilon_{ijkl} (M^{ij}N^{kl} + N^{ij}M^{kl}) = 0##

Can someone please verify?
No, the statement as it stands seems false to me. It is not generally the case thar ##\epsilon_{ijkl} C^{ij} C^{kl} = 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
Orodruin said:
No, the statement as it stands seems false to me. It is not generally the case thar ##\epsilon_{ijkl} C^{ij} C^{kl} = 0##.
You’re right. I am just trying to figure out *how* this could be zero at this point, as in what conditions. Otherwise I’m stumped.
 
DuckAmuck said:
I am just trying to figure out *how* this could be zero at this point, as in what conditions.

You should have been given all the conditions already, that M and N are antisymmetric rank-2 tensors.

There is always the possibility that whoever gave you this problem, is wrong / made a typo. I have been tearing my hair off several times doing excersices in general relativity books... to find out there was some typo in the problem as written.

Here is my "expanded" calculation that I did btw:

The underlined terms I will collect at the end.

## \underline{M^{12}N^{34}} + M^{13}N^{42} + M^{14}N^{23} + \underline{M^{21}N^{43}} + M^{23}N^{14} + M^{24}N^{31} + M^{31}N^{24} + M^{32}N^{41} + M^{34}N^{12} + M^{41}N^{32} + M^{42}N^{13} + M^{43}N^{21} ##
##- ( \underline{M^{12}N^{43}} + M^{13}N^{24} + M^{14}N^{32} + \underline{M^{21}N^{34}} + M^{32}N^{14} + M^{42}N^{31} + M^{23}N^{41} + M^{24}N^{13} + M^{31}N^{42} + M^{34}N^{21} + M^{41}N^{23} + M^{43}N^{12} )##
##+ N^{12}M^{34} + N^{13}M^{42} + N^{14}M^{23} + N^{21}M^{43} + N^{23}M^{14} + N^{24}M^{31} + N^{31}M^{24} + N^{32}M^{41} + \underline{N^{34}M^{12}} + N^{41}M^{32} + N^{42}M^{13} + \underline{N^{43}M^{21}} ##
##- ( N^{12}M^{43} + N^{13}M^{24} + N^{14}M^{32} + N^{21}M^{34} + N^{32}M^{14} + N^{42}M^{31} + N^{23}M^{41} + N^{24}M^{13} + N^{31}M^{42} + \underline{N^{34}M^{21}} + N^{41}M^{23} + \underline{N^{43}M^{12}} \: ) ##

The stuff I underlined:
## M^{12}N^{34} + M^{21}N^{43} - M^{12}N^{43} - M^{21}N^{34} + N^{34}M^{12} +N^{43}M^{21} -N^{34}M^{21} - N^{43}M^{12} ##

(##M^{21}= - M^{12}## and ##N^{43}= - N^{34}##)

##M^{12}N^{34} + (-1)^2 M^{12}N^{34} - (-1)M^{12}N^{34} - (-1)M^{12}N^{34} + N^{34}M^{12} +(-1)^2N^{34}M^{12} - (-1)N^{34}M^{12} - (-1)N^{34}M^{12} = 8M^{12}N^{34} ##

Well that was fun.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top