Prove the transformation is scalar

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the infinitesimal volume element \(d^3x\) is a scalar and that a totally antisymmetric tensor \(A_{ijk}\) transforms as a scalar under certain transformations. Participants are exploring the implications of coordinate transformations and the properties of tensors in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants question whether the infinitesimal volume element is indeed a scalar, suggesting it should transform with the Jacobian determinant. Others are attempting to verify the transformation properties of \(d^3x\) and the tensor \(A_{ijk}\).
  • There are inquiries about the nature of the transformation and the implications of antisymmetry for the tensor, with suggestions to consider specific cases and properties of the tensor under transformation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the correctness of the original poster's reasoning and exploring various aspects of the transformations involved. Some have provided insights into the relationship between the volume element and the antisymmetric tensor, while others are still seeking clarification on specific points.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the transformation of volume elements in different coordinate systems, as well as the definitions and properties of the tensors involved. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and approaches to the problem without reaching a consensus.

Whitehole
Messages
128
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


1.) Prove that the infinitesimal volume element d3x is a scalar
2.) Let Aijk be a totally antisymmetric tensor. Prove that it transforms as a scalar.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

[/B]
1.) Rkh = ∂x'h/∂xk

By coordinate transformation, x'h = Rkh xk

dx'h = (∂x'h/∂xk) (∂xk/∂x'j) (∂x'i/∂xj) dxj

dx'h = δih Rji dxj

dx'h = Rjh dxj

This shows that the differential doesn't affect the transformation hence by performing the differential three times it would not affect the transformation, that is, it is a scalar. Can anyone verify if this is correct?

2.)
A'mnl = ( T'mnl - T'lnm )
= RimRjnRklTmnl - RklRjnRimTlnm
= RimRjnRkl(Tmnl - Tlnm)

What should I do next here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that? In fact I am not even sure that the infinitesimal volume is indeed a scalar...? It should be transformed with the Jacobian determinant of the transformation (take for example the [itex]dV_{spherical}[/itex] and the [itex]dV_{cartesian}[/itex]. Obviously going from (x,y,z) to (x',y',z')=(r,θ,φ) doesn't keep dV the same. In cartesian it's dx dy dz (fine), in spherical it's not dr dθ dφ.

2. What is T?
 
ChrisVer said:
1. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that? In fact I am not even sure that the infinitesimal volume is indeed a scalar...? It should be transformed with the Jacobian determinant of the transformation (take for example the [itex]dV_{spherical}[/itex] and the [itex]dV_{cartesian}[/itex]. Obviously going from (x,y,z) to (x',y',z')=(r,θ,φ) doesn't keep dV the same. In cartesian it's dx dy dz (fine), in spherical it's not dr dθ dφ.

2. What is T?
It is an orthogonal transformation so I'm trying to prove that it is a scalar under that transformation. T is an antisymmetric tensor.
 
Whitehole said:
I'm trying to prove that it is a scalar under that transformation.
You ended up in:
[itex]dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j[/itex]
right?
Now you should check what is:
[itex]d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3[/itex]
why? because by the form you ended at, I cannot see how you deduce that it's a scalar, but instead that dxi are the components of a vector.

2. Well if you have:
[itex]\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]
can you show that if [itex]i=j[/itex] is [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex]? Similar for the rest cases?
 
ChrisVer said:
You ended up in:
[itex]dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j[/itex]
right?
Now you should check what is:
[itex]d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3[/itex]
why? because by the form you ended at, I cannot see how you deduce that it's a scalar, but instead that dxi are the components of a vector.

2. Well if you have:
[itex]\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]
can you show that if [itex]i=j[/itex] is [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex]? Similar for the rest cases?
ChrisVer said:
You ended up in:
[itex]dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j[/itex]
right?
Now you should check what is:
[itex]d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3[/itex]
why? because by the form you ended at, I cannot see how you deduce that it's a scalar, but instead that dxi are the components of a vector.

2. Well if you have:
[itex]\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]
can you show that if [itex]i=j[/itex] is [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex]? Similar for the rest cases?
For the first part I think the argument will be the same as part two because,

[itex]d^3x' \equiv (dx'^1)^i (dx'^2)^j (dx'^3)^k = R^{im}R^{js}R^{kt}(dx^1)^m (dx^2)^s (dx^3)^t[/itex]

So I need to do something to loose those R's (which is the case in part two)

For part two, by setting i=j then take the sum,

[itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = ΣR^{im} R^{is} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]

[itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = δ^{ms} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]

[itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = R^{kt} \epsilon^{mmt}[/itex]

By definition, [itex]\epsilon^{mmt}=0[/itex] if m=s so, [itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = 0[/itex]

Is this what you want me to show? Is it correct that by definition [itex]\epsilon^{mmt}=0[/itex] if m=s?
 
I don't think that "summing" can help... you are trying to prove that for example [itex]\epsilon'^{11a}=\epsilon'^{22a}=\epsilon'^{33a} =0[/itex] and not [itex]\epsilon'^{11a}+\epsilon'^{22a}+\epsilon'^{33a} =0[/itex]...
just set the index [itex]\epsilon'^{ijk}[/itex] i=j (don't sum)... and see what you get...

and yes, by definition that's how it is (that's why it's a totally-antisymmetric tensor)...
if [itex]\epsilon^{mnr}[/itex] is a totally antisymmetric tensor then the following is true:
[itex]\epsilon^{mnr}=-\epsilon^{nmr}[/itex] (along with other permutations).
so if [itex]m=n[/itex] let's say it's m=n=1 then:
[itex]\epsilon^{11r}=-\epsilon^{11r}[/itex] (you ended up with a=-a, so a must be 0)
 
Whitehole said:
d3x′≡(dx′1)i(dx′2)j(dx′3)k=RimRjsRkt(dx1)m(dx2)s(dx3)td3x′≡(dx′1)i(dx′2)j(dx′3)k=RimRjsRkt(dx1)m(dx2)s(dx3)td^3x' \equiv (dx'^1)^i (dx'^2)^j (dx'^3)^k = R^{im}R^{js}R^{kt}(dx^1)^m (dx^2)^s (dx^3)^t
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
 
Last edited:
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
It should be [itex]\epsilon_{123}[/itex], but by your post above what does [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex] have to do with this?
 
Whitehole said:
It should be [itex]\epsilon_{123}[/itex], but by your post above what does [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex] have to do with this?
nothing, it concerns question 1.
 
  • #10
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
Oh wait, how come [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}[/itex] appeared from the transformation

[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]

and I thought the transformation should involve indices? Why use numbers and introduce epsilon?
 
  • #11
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]

I know this is an old thread, but I'm hoping someone might help out. I'm able to get:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} dx^i dx^j dx^k[/itex]

How do we get from this to:
[itex]R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]

I know this step basically completes the proof but I'm not able to get to it.
 
  • #12
Recall that, if ##\sigma## is some permutation of ##(123)##, then ##dx^{\sigma(1)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(2)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(3)} = \mathrm{sgn}(\sigma) dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3##. Writing this in terms of the antisymmetric symbol ##\epsilon##,
\begin{align*}
d^3 \tilde{x} = d\tilde{x}^1 \wedge d\tilde{x}^2 \wedge d\tilde{x}^3 &= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k dx^i \wedge dx^j \wedge dx^k \\
&= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| d^3 x
\end{align*}
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TerryD
  • #13
ergospherical said:
Recall that, if ##\sigma## is some permutation of ##(123)##, then ##dx^{\sigma(1)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(2)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(3)} = \mathrm{sgn}(\sigma) dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3##. Writing this in terms of the antisymmetric symbol ##\epsilon##,
\begin{align*}
d^3 \tilde{x} = d\tilde{x}^1 \wedge d\tilde{x}^2 \wedge d\tilde{x}^3 &= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k dx^i \wedge dx^j \wedge dx^k \\
&= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| d^3 x
\end{align*}
Thanks! I'd gotten an incorrect idea about a volume element which was the source of confusion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ergospherical

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K