Proof? Kronecker delta is the only isotropic second rank tensor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of isotropic second rank tensors, specifically focusing on the Kronecker delta and its uniqueness as the only isotropic tensor in Euclidean space. Participants explore the concept of rotational invariance and its implications for tensor components.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Kronecker delta \(\delta_{ij}\) is an isotropic tensor and seek to demonstrate that it is the only such tensor, suggesting that any isotropic second order tensor \(T_{ij}\) can be expressed as \(T_{ij} = \lambda \delta_{ij}\).
  • One participant questions the meaning of "rotationally invariant," proposing a matrix equation approach to explore the implications of rotational transformations on the tensor components.
  • Another participant clarifies the definition of rotational invariance in this context, providing a mathematical expression for how \(T_{ij}\) transforms under rotation.
  • There is a mention of Schur's lemma, suggesting its relevance to the discussion, although its application is not fully explored.
  • A participant discusses the implications of rotational invariance using Lie group theory, detailing how the commutation relations lead to constraints on the tensor components, particularly in higher dimensions.
  • It is noted that the uniqueness of the Kronecker delta as the only isotropic tensor applies specifically to Cartesian tensors in Euclidean space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the uniqueness of the Kronecker delta as the only isotropic second order tensor, with some supporting the claim while others introduce additional considerations regarding dimensions and the behavior of tensors under rotations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the implications of rotational invariance.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the dimensionality of the space being considered and the specific definitions of isotropic tensors. The discussion also highlights the complexity of tensor behavior under various transformations, which remains partially explored.

mSSM
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
It is pretty straight forward to prove that the Kronecker delta \delta_{ij} is an isotropic tensor, i.e. rotationally invariant.

But how can I show that it is indeed the only isotropic second order tensor? I.e., such that for any isotropic second order tensor T_{ij} we can write
<br /> T_{ij} = \lambda \delta_{ij}<br />
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure what the answer is, or even what the question means. So this may or may not be useful.

What does "rotationally invariant" mean here? Is it something like ##T_{ij}=R_{ik}T_{kl}R_{lj}##? This can be written as a matrix equation: ##T=RTR^T##. If this is supposed to hold for all R, you can try many different choices of R. Each choice gives you a little more information about the components of T. Perhaps you can find a bunch of rotations that give you enough conditions on T to determine all its components.
 
Rotationally invariant in this context means that
<br /> T_{ij} = T&#039;_{ij} = R_{ip} R_{jq} T_{pq}<br />

For example, for the Kronecker delta this is pretty straight forward to show:
<br /> \delta_{ij} = R_{ip} R_{jq} \delta_{pq} = R_{ip}R_{jp} = \delta_{iq}\text{,}<br />
where we have used that R_{ij} are orthogonal matrices, i.e. \mathbf{R}\mathbf{R}^T = \mathbf{1}.
 
mSSM said:
Rotationally invariant in this context means that
<br /> T_{ij} = T&#039;_{ij} = R_{ip} R_{jq} T_{pq}<br />
Ah, yes, that's what I was thinking, but I put two indices in the wrong order. What I wrote corresponds to the matrix equation ##T=RTR##. What you wrote corresponds to ##T=RTR^T##. My idea should still work, but I suspected that there would be a fancier way, and it looks like dextercioby has given you one.
 
mSSM said:
It is pretty straight forward to prove that the Kronecker delta \delta_{ij} is an isotropic tensor, i.e. rotationally invariant.

But how can I show that it is indeed the only isotropic second order tensor? I.e., such that for any isotropic second order tensor T_{ij} we can write
<br /> T_{ij} = \lambda \delta_{ij}<br />
It is probably worth noting that the uniqueness only applies to (cartesian) tensors in Euclidean space.
 
Last edited:
If a tensor T is rotationally invariant, that means that for every rotation R, that T = RT.T.R. Note that RT = R-1.

Since pure rotations form a Lie group, we can use its Lie algebra: R = 1 + ε*L for small ε. Since LT = -L, that gives us commutator [L,T] = 0.

A rotation-algebra generator has form (Lab)ij = δaiδbj - δajδbi to within some multiplicative factor. Its commutator with T is

[Lab,T]ij = δaiTbj - δbiTaj - δbjTia + δajTib

If a,b,i,j are all different, then this expression is zero. But let's try ab = 12 and ij = 13 for definiteness. Then it equals T23. Thus, for number of dimensions >= 3, all off-diagonal T is zero.

Let's turn to ab = 12 and ij = 11. We get T21 + T12 = 0, or Tij ~ εij, the antisymmetric symbol.

Turning to ab = 12 and ij = 12, we get T22 - T11 = 0

We thus find two possible invariants: T ~ δ for all numbers of dimensions and also T ~ ε for two dimensions.

-

Alternately, we can contract the commutator on b and j, giving δaiTr(T) - Tai - (n-1)*Tia for n dimensions.

Adding (ai) and (ia) gives 2*δaiTr(T) - n*(Tai + Tia)

Thus, the symmetric part of T is proportional to δ.

Subtracting instead gives (n-2)*(Tia - Tai)

Thus, the antisymmetric part of T vanishes, except for 2 dimensions, where it is proportional to ε.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K