Math Methods for Physicists by Arfken Questions?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and application of tensor equations from "Math Methods for Physicists" by Arfken and Weber, specifically focusing on the transformation of tensors across different dimensions and ranks, as well as the implications of these transformations in the context of theoretical physics, including string theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how equations 2.66 can be used to transform tensors from 4-D Minkowski space-time to 11-D space, given that the rank of tensors must match while the equations are said to be independent of dimension.
  • Another participant suggests that there is a confusion between the concepts of rank and dimension, explaining that a rank 2 tensor corresponds to a matrix whose size depends on the dimension of the space.
  • A participant seeks clarification on whether equations 2.66 depend implicitly on the dimensions of the tensors involved.
  • Another reply indicates that it is understood by readers that the indices of tensors are dependent on the dimension of the space, implying that the equations are valid within the context of specified dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between tensor rank and dimension, with some suggesting that the equations are dimension-independent while others imply that the equations inherently depend on the dimensions being discussed. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these relationships.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the clarity of definitions for rank and dimension, as well as the assumptions made about the applicability of the equations across different dimensional spaces. The specific conditions under which the equations hold true are not fully explored.

Abolaban
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hello Big Minds,

I am reading through Math Methods for Physicists by Arfken and Weber 6th ed --Tensor Analysis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note1:
In page 133, in the foot note it is said that "In N-dimensional space a tensor of rank n has N^n componenets"...in page 135 I understood from the written text that Contravariant, Covariant and Mixed tensors set of equations (2.66) works independent of reference frame and space dimension.
Q1: how can one use equations 2.66 to transform from 4-D (Minkowiski space-time) )to 11-D dimension (as one proposal of String theory) for instance while both sides of Tensors in equations 2.66 must have the same rank (this case of rank 2)? Simply speaking, the number of Tensor's indices depend on the rank of the tensor and the rank of the tensor depends on the dimension but equations 2.66 are independent of the dimension...how is that?
plus his indices of coordinate transformation of contravariant were defined in the subscript first 2.62a but they apear in the superscript in the first equation of 2.66...why? (they must be the same as in this link)

Page(s):
upload_2015-1-30_20-12-15.png

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abolaban
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're confusing rank with dimension.

A tensor of rank 2 is like a matrix. In 3 dimensions the matrix would be 3x3, for 4 dimensions 4x4 and for 11 dimensions it would be 11x11.

The dimension comes into play in a tensor in the value of the indices ie I and j values for 3 dimensions would be { 1, 2, 3 } and for 11 would be { 1, 2, 3, ... 11 }
 
Thanks "jedishrfu" for ur reply,

do you mean that equations 2.66 depend implicitly on dimensions?
 
I guess you could say that. It's understood by the reader what values the indices may take and so if you as the author are stating these equations then you would've also said the dimension of the space in which they are valid.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
16K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K