# Prove the transformation is scalar

## 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.

## 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?

Related Calculus and Beyond Homework Help News on Phys.org
ChrisVer
Gold Member
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 $dV_{spherical}$ and the $dV_{cartesian}$. 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?

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 $dV_{spherical}$ and the $dV_{cartesian}$. 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.

ChrisVer
Gold Member
I'm trying to prove that it is a scalar under that transformation.
You ended up in:
$dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j$
right?
Now you should check what is:
$d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3$
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:
$\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}$
can you show that if $i=j$ is $\epsilon^{ijk}=0$? Similar for the rest cases?

You ended up in:
$dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j$
right?
Now you should check what is:
$d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3$
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:
$\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}$
can you show that if $i=j$ is $\epsilon^{ijk}=0$? Similar for the rest cases?
You ended up in:
$dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j$
right?
Now you should check what is:
$d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3$
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:
$\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}$
can you show that if $i=j$ is $\epsilon^{ijk}=0$? Similar for the rest cases?
For the first part I think the argument will be the same as part two because,

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

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,

$Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = ΣR^{im} R^{is} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}$

$Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = δ^{ms} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}$

$Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = R^{kt} \epsilon^{mmt}$

By definition, $\epsilon^{mmt}=0$ if m=s so, $Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = 0$

Is this what you want me to show? Is it correct that by definition $\epsilon^{mmt}=0$ if m=s?

ChrisVer
Gold Member
I don't think that "summing" can help... you are trying to prove that for example $\epsilon'^{11a}=\epsilon'^{22a}=\epsilon'^{33a} =0$ and not $\epsilon'^{11a}+\epsilon'^{22a}+\epsilon'^{33a} =0$...
just set the index $\epsilon'^{ijk}$ 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 $\epsilon^{mnr}$ is a totally antisymmetric tensor then the following is true:
$\epsilon^{mnr}=-\epsilon^{nmr}$ (along with other permutations).
so if $m=n$ let's say it's m=n=1 then:
$\epsilon^{11r}=-\epsilon^{11r}$ (you ended up with a=-a, so a must be 0)

ChrisVer
Gold Member
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:
$d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3$
from linear algebra, what is:
$\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?$

Last edited:
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:
$d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3$
from linear algebra, what is:
$\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?$
It should be $\epsilon_{123}$, but by your post above what does $\epsilon^{ijk}=0$ have to do with this?

ChrisVer
Gold Member
It should be $\epsilon_{123}$, but by your post above what does $\epsilon^{ijk}=0$ have to do with this?
nothing, it concerns question 1.

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:
$d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3$
from linear algebra, what is:
$\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?$
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:
$d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3$
from linear algebra, what is:
$\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?$
Oh wait, how come $\epsilon^{ijk}$ appeared from the transformation

$d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3$

and I thought the transformation should involve indices? Why use numbers and introduce epsilon?