A Special Relativity: A^μ_ν Differences Explained

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the differences between the tensor notations A^{\mu}_{\nu}, A^{\mu}_{\hspace{0.2cm}\nu}, and A^{\hspace{0.2cm}\mu}_{\nu}, emphasizing that the first two are valid representations of second-rank tensors while the last should be avoided due to unclear index placement. It explains how indices can be raised and lowered using metric components g_{\mu \nu} and g^{\mu \nu}. The conversation also touches on the relationship between tensors and matrices, noting that while tensors can be represented as matrices, the correspondence between indices and matrix rows or columns must be clearly defined. It highlights that in a matrix representation, the first index typically corresponds to the row and the second to the column. Overall, understanding these distinctions is crucial for proper tensor manipulation in the context of special relativity.
LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
Can someone explain me difference between
A^{\mu}_{\hspace{0.2cm} \nu}
A^{\hspace{0.2cm} \mu}_{\nu}
and
A^{\mu}_{\nu}?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first two expressions are correct and usually denote components of a 2nd-rank tensor. You can lower and raise indices with the metric components ##g_{\mu \nu}## and ##g^{\mu \nu}##, respectively, i.e., you have
$${A_{\nu}}^{\mu} = g_{\nu \sigma} g^{\mu \rho} {A^\sigma}_{\rho}.$$
The last expression should be avoided, because the horizontal placement of the indices is not indicated. It's ok if the tensor ##A## is symmetric, i.e., if ##A_{\mu \nu}=A_{\nu \mu}##, because (only!) then
$${A^{\mu}}_{\nu} = g^{\mu \rho} A_{\rho \nu} = g^{\mu \rho} A_{\nu \rho} ={A_{\nu}}^{\mu},$$
and the horizontal ordering is not important.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale, Orodruin, LagrangeEuler and 2 others
vanhees71 said:
The first two expressions are correct and usually denote components of a 2nd-rank tensor. You can lower and raise indices with the metric components ##g_{\mu \nu}## and ##g^{\mu \nu}##, respectively, i.e., you have
$${A_{\nu}}^{\mu} = g_{\nu \sigma} g^{\mu \rho} {A^\sigma}_{\rho}.$$
The last expression should be avoided, because the horizontal placement of the indices is not indicated. It's ok if the tensor ##A## is symmetric, i.e., if ##A_{\mu \nu}=A_{\nu \mu}##, because (only!) then
$${A^{\mu}}_{\nu} = g^{\mu \rho} A_{\rho \nu} = g^{\mu \rho} A_{\nu \rho} ={A_{\nu}}^{\mu},$$
and the horizontal ordering is not important.
Is there some connection with matrices? For instance, if we have two indices.
A^{\mu}_{\hspace{0.2cm}\nu} what is the row and what is the column? And in this case
A^{\hspace{0.2cm}\mu}_{\nu} what is the row and what is the column?
 
Tensors are not matrices and matrices are not tensors. Tensors (of rank 2) may be represented by matrices in some basis but it is then up to you to define how indices correspond to rows and columns in a consistent manner.
 
  • Like
Likes robphy, vanhees71 and cianfa72
LagrangeEuler said:
And in this case A^{\hspace{0.2cm}\mu}_{\nu} what is the row and what is the column?
Typically when in a given basis you represent a tensor as a matrix the first index (on the left) is the row and the second the column. So in your example ##\nu## is the row and ##\mu## the column.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and LagrangeEuler
I'd repeat Orodruin's caution. Any rank 2 tensor can be represented as a matrix (4×4 in relativity), and it's quite common to get metric tensors represented like this. But there isn't a way to notate upper and lower indices in that form, so it isn't clear what can be legally contracted with what and it's easy to end up writing a matrix equation that contracts over two lower indices. That's difficult to debug, so you do it at your own risk.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes robphy, cianfa72 and vanhees71