Is this tensor operation valid?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arroy_0205
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of a tensor operation involving the contraction of tensors in the context of special relativity. Participants explore whether it is appropriate to multiply both sides of a relation by a contravariant tensor and then contract, particularly focusing on the implications of such operations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of multiplying both sides of the equation f(p_{\mu}, q_{\mu})=0 by p^{\mu} and then contracting, expressing uncertainty about the general proof of this operation.
  • Another participant corrects the notation, suggesting that it should be f_{\mu} instead of f, and confirms that contraction can be performed after the correction.
  • A participant proposes a specific example of a linear relation a_1p_{\mu} + a_2q_{\mu} = 0 to illustrate the operation and expresses hesitation about accepting the proof without solid justification.
  • Further clarification is provided that multiplying by p^{\mu} introduces summation, raising concerns about the appropriateness of this operation.
  • Some participants assert that the operation is valid, likening it to ordinary multiplication and emphasizing that it can be considered component-wise.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of the tensor operation, with some affirming its validity while others remain uncertain about the implications of introducing summation through contraction.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved concerns regarding the assumptions underlying the tensor operations and the need for a solid proof to support the claims made in the discussion.

arroy_0205
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Can anybody help me clear my following doubt?
Suppose, I have a relation of the form
[tex] f(p_{\mu},q_{\mu})=0[/tex]
Then can I multiply the both sides by [tex]p^{\mu}[/tex] and then contract?
[tex] p^{\mu}f(p_{\mu},q_{\mu})=0[/tex]
After this I want to use the identity [tex]p^{\mu}p_{\mu}=m^2[/tex] as known in special relativity. So I am first multiplying both sides by a contravariant tensor and then using the summation convention. The question is am I doing it right? I feel this is a valid operation and I have tested one simple example where this is valid but I am not able to prove it in general. Can anybody help? You may refer to some books or website also where I can look up.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
arroy_0205 said:
Can anybody help me clear my following doubt?
Suppose, I have a relation of the form
[tex] f(p_{\mu},q_{\mu})=0[/tex]
Then can I multiply the both sides by [tex]p^{\mu}[/tex] and then contract?
[tex] p^{\mu}f(p_{\mu},q_{\mu})=0[/tex]
After this I want to use the identity [tex]p^{\mu}p_{\mu}=m^2[/tex] as known in special relativity. So I am first multiplying both sides by a contravariant tensor and then using the summation convention. The question is am I doing it right? I feel this is a valid operation and I have tested one simple example where this is valid but I am not able to prove it in general. Can anybody help? You may refer to some books or website also where I can look up.

Hi arroy_0205! :smile:

It would have to be fµ, not just f:

[tex]f_{\mu}(p_{\nu},q_{\nu})=0[/tex]

Then you can contract:

[tex]p^{\mu}f_{\mu}(p_{\nu},q_{\nu})=0[/tex]

Were you thinking of a particular function f? :smile:
 
Hi tiny-tim,
Thanks, and yes you are right it should be [tex]f_{\mu}[/tex]. In fact I was trying to consider a general form like say
[tex] a_1p_{\mu}+a_2q_{\mu}=0[/tex]
there is no constant term in the left hand side. But the proof is still not clear to me. This is sort of obvious but without a solid proof I hesitate to accept. May be I am overlooking something obvious and trivial regarding its proof.
 
arroy_0205 said:
[tex]a_1p_{\mu}+a_2q_{\mu}=0[/tex]

Hi arroy_0205! :smile:

Then, multiplying both sides by [itex]p^{\mu}[/itex] :

[tex]p^{\mu}(a_1p_{\mu}+a_2q_{\mu})\,=\,0[/tex]

so

[tex]a_1p^{\mu}p_{\mu}\,+\,a_2p^{\mu}q_{\mu}\,=\,0[/tex]

or

[tex]a_1m^2\,+\,a_2p\cdot q\,=\,0[/tex] :smile:
 
That is true, however by multiplying with [tex]p^{\mu}[/tex] I am also introducing summation, this is not like ordinary multiplication by a function but multiplication followed by summation. My doubt is there, whether this kind of operation is appropriate.
 
No, it's fine! :smile:

It is like ordinary multiplication by a function …

it's four ordinary multiplications, added together …

which is perfectly valid! :biggrin:
 
arroy_0205 said:
That is true, however by multiplying with [tex]p^{\mu}[/tex] I am also introducing summation, this is not like ordinary multiplication by a function but multiplication followed by summation. My doubt is there, whether this kind of operation is appropriate.

Yes. Of course it is valid.
Just think of this operation component-wise.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K