Joe's confusion about contraction and direct product explained.

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of contraction and direct product in the context of tensors, specifically focusing on the relationship between the contraction of a tensor product and the resulting scalar values. Participants explore the notation and implications of these operations within the framework of one-forms and vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how the contraction of a tensor product results in a scalar, questioning the relationship between the expressions <\omega^\alpha,e_\beta> and \omega^\alpha\otimes e_\beta.
  • Another participant clarifies that the bold-faced quantities represent one-forms and vectors, and that their indices denote which vector is being referenced, rather than their components.
  • It is noted that <\omega^{\alpha},e_{\beta}> represents a set of 16 scalars, while \omega^{\alpha}\otimes e_{\beta} represents a set of 16 rank two tensors.
  • Participants discuss the contraction process on the rank two tensors, with one participant suggesting that the contraction yields a scalar similar to the inner product.
  • Further elaboration is provided on how the contraction is performed on each of the 16 tensors of rank 2, leading to a better understanding of the operations involved.
  • One participant reflects on their misunderstanding regarding the nature of the direct product, realizing that the resulting tensors are not "dyadic" but rather structured as described in the examples provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants demonstrate a mix of understanding and confusion regarding the concepts of contraction and direct product. While some points of clarification are made, there remains uncertainty about the implications and interpretations of the tensor operations discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of notation and the interpretation of indices in tensor operations, as well as the potential for misunderstanding when dealing with multiple tensor ranks and contractions.

Living_Dog
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
In this problem the authors state:

"But <[tex]\omega^\alpha,e_\beta[/tex]> is the contraction of [tex]\omega^\alpha\otimes e_\beta[/tex] ,... "

I know that the first expression evaluates to the Kronecker delta in [tex]\alpha[/tex] and [tex]\beta[/tex] but the other expression is a 2x2 tensor. So how is the first (the identity tensor) the contraction (implying one less index) of the second, which is a 2nd rank tensor??

Thanks in advance for any help you may give me.

-LD
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is confusing at first, but you need to understand the notation. The bold-faced quantities, omega and e, are one-forms and vectors, respectively. But their subscripts and superscripts do not refer to the components of omega and e, but are indices to denote which vector you are talking about. This is explained (briefly!) on page 51. Thus
[tex]\omega^{\alpha}[/tex]
does not refer to the four components of a single one-form, but to a set of four one-forms. Then
[tex]<\omega^{\alpha},e_{\beta}>[/tex]
is a set of 16 scalars, each of which is the innerproduct of one vector (one of the e's) and one one-form (one of the omegas). But the quantity:
[tex]\omega^{\alpha}\otimes e_{\beta}[/tex]
is a set of 16 rank two tensors, each of which is the outer product of one e and one omega. So when I contract the rank-2 tensors on the RHS, I get a set of 16 scalar equations. Does this make sense?
 
phyzguy said:
It is confusing at first, but you need to understand the notation. The bold-faced quantities, omega and e, are one-forms and vectors, respectively. But their subscripts and superscripts do not refer to the components of omega and e, but are indices to denote which vector you are talking about. This is explained (briefly!) on page 51. Thus
[tex]\omega^{\alpha}[/tex]
does not refer to the four components of a single one-form, but to a set of four one-forms. Then
[tex]<\omega^{\alpha},e_{\beta}>[/tex]
is a set of 16 scalars, each of which is the innerproduct of one vector (one of the e's) and one one-form (one of the omegas). But the quantity:
[tex]\omega^{\alpha}\otimes e_{\beta}[/tex]
is a set of 16 rank two tensors, each of which is the outer product of one e and one omega. So when I contract the rank-2 tensors on the RHS, I get a set of 16 scalar equations. Does this make sense?

The 2nd throws me off a bit. I understand both descriptions of these two expressions. What I am missing is how
[tex]<\bold{\omega}^{\alpha},\bold{e}_{\beta}>[/tex]
is a contraction of
[tex]\bold{\omega}^{\alpha}\otimes \bold{e}_{\beta}[/tex].

E.g.

[tex]<\bold{\omega}^{0},\bold{e}_{0}> = 1[/tex]

but

[tex]\bold{\omega}^{\alpha}\otimes\bold{e}_{\beta} = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}\right)[/tex]

So a contraction on the 2nd expression would yield [tex]tr(\bold{\omega}^{\alpha}\otimes\bold{e}_{\beta}) = 4[/tex]
Your reply has helped. I did forget that the indices are indicating which 4-component geometric object is being considered. Does the vector and 1-form have 4 components in the 1st expression, but only one in the 2nd??

Wait a second... I just re-read your 2nd statement:

"But the quantity [tex]\omega^{\alpha}\otimes e_{\beta}[/tex] is a set of 16 rank two tensors, ..."

It is a set of 16 tensors, each of rank 2! So then the contraction is done on each of these 16 tensors of rank 2. So [tex]\bold{e}_{0}[/tex] and [tex]\bold{\omega}^{0}[/tex] both have 4 components. When you take their direct product you get a 4x4 tensor. Ok, now what is the contraction on these tensors? The same as the inner product?? (I think I am beginning to see...)
 
Last edited:
So you have:
[tex]<\bold{\omega}^0,\bold{e}_0>=1[/tex]
and:
[tex]\bold{\omega}^0\otimes\bold{e}_0 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]
So when you contract the rank two tensor you get a scalar.
[tex]\bold{\omega}^{\alpha}\otimes\bold{e}_{\beta}[/tex]
Is a set of 16 such tensors.
 
phyzguy said:
So you have:
[tex]<\bold{\omega}^0,\bold{e}_0>=1[/tex]
and:
[tex]\bold{\omega}^0\otimes\bold{e}_0 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]
So when you contract the rank two tensor you get a scalar.
[tex]\bold{\omega}^{\alpha}\otimes\bold{e}_{\beta}[/tex]
Is a set of 16 such tensors.

[tex]\bold{\omega}^0\otimes\bold{e}_1 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

[tex]\bold{\omega}^1\otimes\bold{e}_2 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0&0&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&0 \\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

[tex]\bold{\omega}^2\otimes\bold{e}_3 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&1 \\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

etc...

So if I contract any of these 2nd rank tensors I will get '1' when the indices are along the diagonal (just as when I take the inner-product of any [tex]<\bold{\omega}^{\alpha},\bold{e}_{\alpha}>[/tex]) and '0' when they aren't - like the ones I wrote above.

OHhhhh... I see now my confusion. I thought that the direct product yielded a 16 element tensor with ... "dyadic" type elements in their respective slots! Wow. They're not - they're those things above.

Thanks ever so much for all your help and patience with me phyzguy. May God richly bless you, in Jesus' name, amen.

-joe
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K