Rank-2 tensor: multiple definitions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definitions and properties of rank-2 tensors, particularly in relation to spin-2 objects and their transformation properties under rotations. Participants explore the connections between different definitions of rank-2 tensors, their traceless nature, and how these relate to physical concepts in theoretical physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that a rank-2 tensor transforms like a spin-2 object under rotations, with specific transformation rules provided.
  • Others clarify that a spin-2 object corresponds to a symmetric traceless rank-2 tensor, which has five independent components in Cartesian coordinates.
  • There is a question about why the tensor corresponding to a spin-2 object is traceless, with explanations involving the need for irreducibility and the role of the trace in transformations.
  • Participants discuss the implications of specific components of the tensor, such as T_{00}, and whether they can be considered scalars or part of a spin-2 object.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the transformation properties of different components of spin-2 objects and how they relate to the total spin and spin projections.
  • A later reply discusses the transformation of components under rotations, emphasizing that different states of a spin-2 object transform differently based on their spin projection.
  • One participant notes that in a specific context involving CMB anisotropies, certain components are labeled as tensors, vectors, or scalars based on their transformation properties, questioning the accuracy of this terminology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and properties of rank-2 tensors and their relation to spin-2 objects. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise terminology and classification of components based on their transformation behavior.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of tensors and the implications of their transformation properties. The discussion also highlights the complexity of relating different physical concepts to mathematical definitions.

fairy._.queen
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Hi all!
In a paper they say that a certain quantity is a rank-2 tensor because it transforms like a spin-2 object under rotations, that is: if the basis vectors undergo a rotation of angle \phi, then this quantity, say A, transforms like
A\mapsto Ae^{i2\phi}

As far as I knew, a rank-2 tensor is a 2-linear functions or vectors or one forms. In the case it is, for example, completely covariant, it will transform like
T'_{ij}=\frac{\partial x^{'a}}{\partial x^i}\frac{\partial x^{'b}}{\partial x^j}T_{ab}

What is the link between the two definitions? Why should a spin-2 object be a tensor?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A spin-2 object corresponds to a symmetric traceless rank-2 tensor.

In Cartesian coordinates the components are Txx, Txy = Tyx, Tyy, etc, with five independent components. To relate this to spin 2, we go to the spherical basis,

e+ = (ex + iey)/√2,
e0 = ez,
e- = (ex - iey)/√2.

The five independent components are then T++, T+0 = T0+, T00, T-0 = T0-, T--, and these transform under rotations like the |j=2, m> components of a spin 2 object.
 
Thank you for your reply!
Why is the tensor corresponding to the spin-2 object traceless?
 
fairy._.queen said:
Why is the tensor corresponding to the spin-2 object traceless?
To get a definite spin we need an object that is irreducible. But in general a symmetric tensor can be reduced. That is, it can be split into parts that behave differently under rotations.

The trace T = ∑Tii is a scalar, meaning it's invariant under 3-D rotations. So to look at how the rest of Tab behaves, we split the trace off and consider what's left - the traceless part, which is Tab - δabT/3.

This leaves us with five independent components rather than six. And under 3-D rotations these five components transform only into linear combinations of themselves - the trace is no longer involved. In the spherical basis the five components correspond to the five values of m allowed for spin 2, namely T++ is m = 2, T+0 is m = 1, T00 is m = 0, etc. Under a rotation about the z-axis, T++ ~ T++ e2iφ, and so on.
 
Thank you again for replying!

There is a thing I don't get: if T_{00}\mapsto T_{00} under rotations, doesn't that mean it is a scalar, rather than a component of a spin-2 object?

A spin-2 object corresponds to a symmetric traceless rank-2 tensor.
From what you said in your last post, it seems to me that a spin-2 object corresponds to the T_{++} component of a rank-2 tensor... where am I wrong?
 
fairy._.queen said:
There is a thing I don't get: if T_{00}\mapsto T_{00} under rotations, doesn't that mean it is a scalar, rather than a component of a spin-2 object?
This happens only under one particular rotation - the rotation about the z-axis. Under other rotations, the five components get mixed together.
fairy._.queen said:
From what you said in your last post, it seems to me that a spin-2 object corresponds to the T_{++} component of a rank-2 tensor... where am I wrong?
T++ is only the state in which the spin is spin-up (m = 2). Of course the spin of a spin-2 object can have any other orientation besides.
 
I'm afraid I didn't really understand how an object of spin s transforms, then.
Do the m=1 component of a spin-1 and spin-2 objects both transform as
C\mapsto Ce^{i\phi}?

I thought all the components of a spin-2 object would transform as
C\mapsto Ce^{i2\phi}

Sorry if the question is trivial!
 
fairy._.queen said:
I thought all the components of a spin-2 object would transform as
C\mapsto Ce^{i2\phi}
You're thinking of "spin" as meaning the spin projection, m = 2. A spin-2 object meaning total spin, j = 2 can be in different states |j=2, m> with any spin projection m between ±2. Under a rotation about the z-axis, each of these five states does something different:

|j=2, m=+2> → |j=2, m=+2> e2iφ
|j=2, m=+1> → |j=2, m=+1> e
|j=2, m=0> → |j=2, m=0>
|j=2, m=-1> → |j=2, m=-1> e-iφ
|j=2, m=-1> → |j=2, m=-2> e-2iφ

And under rotations about some other axis, the states will mix together. But forgive me, for spin 2 it gets rather messy, so let me do it instead for spin 1, where the three spin-1 states transform like the three components of a vector.

Under a rotation through an angle θ about the y-axis, the Cartesian components of a vector or spin-1 object do this:

Vx → Vx cos θ - Vz sin θ
Vy → Vy
Vz → Vz cos θ + Vx sin θ [Eq 1]

Now replace the Cartesian components with the spherical components (see way up above). I'll just write out one of them, [Eq 1]:

V0 → V0 cos θ + (V+ + V-)/√2 sin θ

So there they are mixing together as promised.
 
Thank you for your thorough reply!
In the paper I am reading, the anisotropies of the CMB which are due to a Bianchi background geometry (not the usual statistical perturbations to the FRW Universe) can be split in 5 according to their behaviour under rotation around some preferred axis which reflects some symmetry. 2 of them are called rank-2 tensors, because they transform with an m=2 rule, another 2 are called vectors, because they transform with an m=1 rule and 1 is called scalar, m=0.
From what you say, it seems to me that, strictly speaking, you shouldn't say that the m=0,1 parts of the perturbation are scalars or vectors, in that they could be the m=0,1 components of a spin-2 object. If you confirm that this terminology is not 100% correct, then I think I got the point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
965
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
941
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K