Symmetric Part of a Mixed (1,1) Tensor

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies that mixed (1,1) tensors cannot be decomposed into symmetric and antisymmetric parts without a metric. The author explains that in the context of basic relativity, Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski metric facilitate the identification of upper and lower indices, allowing for the treatment of symmetric (1,1) tensors as equivalent to (0,2) tensors. The inability to define symmetrization for mixed tensors in affine differential geometry is also highlighted, emphasizing the necessity of a metric for proper tensor analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mixed (1,1) tensors
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations
  • Knowledge of the Minkowski metric
  • Basic concepts of tensor symmetrization and antisymmetrization
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of mixed tensors in the context of differential geometry
  • Learn about the role of metrics in tensor analysis
  • Explore the implications of tensor transformations under coordinate changes
  • Investigate affine differential geometry and its treatment of tensors
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in physics, particularly those focused on general relativity, tensor calculus, and differential geometry, will benefit from this discussion.

wgempel
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have read in a couple of places that mixed tensors cannot be decomposed into a sum of symmetric and antisymmetric parts. This doesn't make any sense to me because I thought a mixed (1,1) tensor was basically equivalent to a standard linear transform from basic linear algebra. I am also having trouble with finding anything that shows how changing the order of the indexes effects a mixed tensor and how basic coordinate transforms affect mixed tensors with permuted indexes. The background is basic relativity so I usually use lorentz transforms and minkowski metric for examples. Here is my idea of the symmetric part of a mixed tensor M.

\frac{1}{2}\left[ {M^\alpha}_\beta + {N^\alpha}_\beta \right]

where (i think)

{N^\alpha}_\beta = g_{\nu\beta}{M^\nu}_\mu g^{\mu\alpha} = {M_\beta}^\alpha

I am having trouble seeing how to transform it to a new coordinate system because every book I have (and I have about 10) shows the coordinate transform matrices and mixed tensors with upper and lower indices directly above/below each other, so I am not sure how they apply.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When you have a metric like the g_{\mu\nu} here you can identify the upper and lower indices with one another by using the metric. Essentially what you always do when performing calculations in this index formalism is to "lower" or "raise" indices with the help of the metric. So in this case it make perfect sense to talk about a symmetric (1,1) tensor because you can identify it with a (0,2) tensor by using the metric and this (0,2) tensor you can use symmetrisation or anti-symmetrisation upon. So if one has a metric one usually writes indices of a symmetric (1,1) tensor directly above one another because the ordering makes no difference. Of course you cannot do this for non-symmetric tensors, e.g. assume T non-symmetric:
T_{\nu}^{\ \alpha}=g^{\alpha\mu}T_{\nu\mu}\neq g^{\alpha\mu}T_{\mu\nu}=T^{\alpha}_{\ \nu}
It is true that in the case where you do not have a metric (e.g. affine differential geometry) the "symmetrisation" of a mixed (1,1) tensor can not be properly defined. Because in this case the tensor can only be viewed as a linear map from the tangent to the cotangent space (or vice versa, depending on the ordering of indices) and not as a bilinear map from the tangent space to the reals. Without a metric you cannot canonically identify the tangent and the cotangent space.
 
OK, that makes sense to me, thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K