Tensor equation in Dirac's 1975 book

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter exmarine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Tensor
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a tensor equation presented in Dirac's 1975 book, specifically equation 3.4. Participants are examining the validity of the equation and whether a factor of 4 should be included on the right side of the equation, exploring implications in the context of tensor calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the equation should include a factor of 4 on the right side, suggesting that it might be necessary for dimensional consistency.
  • Another participant asserts that the equation as presented by Dirac is correct and attempts to clarify the expression by expanding it, showing that it simplifies to the identity tensor.
  • A further elaboration is provided, reiterating that the expanded form leads to the identity tensor, reinforcing the previous claim.
  • One participant challenges the interpretation by calculating the first term of the expansion, suggesting that it sums to 4, while also noting that off-diagonal terms would be zero.
  • Another participant counters this by considering a special case of the identity transformation, arguing that the result of the equation in that scenario is 1, not 4.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are competing views regarding the necessity of the factor of 4 in the equation, with some supporting Dirac's original formulation and others proposing alternative interpretations.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the variables and the context of the transformations being discussed, which may affect the interpretations of the tensor equation.

exmarine
Messages
241
Reaction score
11
Dirac has equation 3.4 as:

x[itex]^{\lambda}_{,\mu}[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}_{,\nu}[/itex]=g[itex]^{\lambda}_{\nu}[/itex]

Shouldn't that have a 4 on the right side?

x[itex]^{\lambda}_{,\mu}[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}_{,\nu}[/itex]=(4?)g[itex]^{\lambda}_{\nu}[/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
exmarine said:
Dirac has equation 3.4 as:

x[itex]^{\lambda}_{,\mu}[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}_{,\nu}[/itex]=g[itex]^{\lambda}_{\nu}[/itex]

Shouldn't that have a 4 on the right side?

x[itex]^{\lambda}_{,\mu}[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}_{,\nu}[/itex]=(4?)g[itex]^{\lambda}_{\nu}[/itex]

Nope. let me open the expression for you


[itex]\Sigma _ \mu \frac{\partial x^ \lambda}{\partial x ^ \mu} \frac{\partial x^ \mu}{\partial x ^ \nu}=\delta ^ \lambda _ \nu = g ^ \lambda _ \nu[/itex]
 
Let me open it some more

[itex] \Sigma _ \mu \frac{\partial x^ \lambda}{\partial x ^ \mu} \frac{\partial x^ \mu}{\partial x ^ \nu}=\Sigma _ \mu \delta ^ \lambda _ \mu \delta ^ \mu _ \nu =\delta ^ \lambda _ \nu = g ^ \lambda _ \nu[/itex]
 
? Wouldn't the first term, for example, be:

[itex]\frac{\partial x^{0}}{\partial x^{0'}}[/itex][itex]\frac{\partial x^{0'}}{\partial x^{0}}[/itex]+[itex]\frac{\partial x^{0}}{\partial x^{1'}}[/itex][itex]\frac{\partial x^{1'}}{\partial x^{0}}[/itex]+[itex]\frac{\partial x^{0}}{\partial x^{2'}}[/itex][itex]\frac{\partial x^{2'}}{\partial x^{0}}[/itex]+[itex]\frac{\partial x^{0}}{\partial x^{3'}}[/itex][itex]\frac{\partial x^{3'}}{\partial x^{0}}[/itex]=4?

And all the off-diagonals be 0 of course.
 
Consider the special case of the identity transformation, where all the new coordinates are the same as the old ones. That is, x0' = x0, x1' = x1, x2' = x2, and x3' = x3. Plug this into your equation, and I think you'll see that the result is 1, not 4.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
962
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K