How Do You Derive a Tensor Matrix from a Potential Energy Function?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving a tensor matrix from a potential energy function as presented in Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics." The user expresses confusion about the transition from equations 6.49 to 6.50, specifically how to calculate a tensor from the given potential function. The potential function is represented in component notation using Einstein summation convention, highlighting that it is a scalar and cannot be treated as a matrix. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between the potential function and its corresponding tensor representation. Overall, the user finds the Goldstein text lacking in clarity and seeks additional resources for better comprehension.
KleZMeR
Messages
125
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am looking at Goldstein, Classical Mechanics. I am on page 254, and trying to reference page 190 for my confusion.

I don't understand how they got from equation 6.49 to 6.50, potential energy function to tensor matrix. I really want to know how to calculate a tensor from a function of this type (any type), but somehow the Goldstein text is not clear to me.

Homework Equations



V = \frac{k}{2} (\eta_{1}^2+2\eta_{2}^2 +\eta_{3}^2-2\eta_{1}\eta_{2}-2\eta_{2}\eta_{3})

\begin{array}{ccc} k & -k & 0 \\ -k & 2k & -k \\ 0 & -k & k \end{array}

The Attempt at a Solution



The solution is given. I think this is done by means of equation 5.14, but again, I am not too clear on this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\mathcal V=\frac 1 2 \vec \eta^T V \vec\eta=\frac 1 2 (\eta_1 \ \ \ \eta_2 \ \ \ \eta_3) \left(\begin{array}{ccc} k \ \ \ \ -k \ \ \ \ 0 \\ -k \ \ \ \ 2k \ \ \ \ -k \\ 0 \ \ \ \ -k \ \ \ \ k \end{array} \right)\ \left( \begin{array}{c} \eta_1 \\ \eta_2 \\ \eta_3 \end{array} \right)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes KleZMeR
Thanks Shyan, but how do I decompose the potential function to arrive at this? Or, rather, how do I represent my function in Einstein's summation notation? I believe from what you are showing that my potential function itself can be written as a matrix and be decomposed by two multiplications using \eta^T , \eta<br />?
 
The potential function is a scalar so you can't write it as a matrix. And the thing I wrote, that's the simplest way of getting a scalar from a vector and a tensor. So people consider this and define the potential tensor which may be useful in some ways.
In component notation and using Einstein summation convention, its written as:
<br /> \mathcal V=\frac 1 2 \eta_i V^i_j\eta^j<br />
But the potential function itself, is just \mathcal V in component notation because its a scalar and has only one component!
 
  • Like
Likes KleZMeR
Thank you! That did help a LOT. Somehow I keep resorting back to the Goldstein book because it is the same notation we use in lecture and tests, but it does lack some wording in my opinion. I guess the explanation you gave would be better found in a math-methods book.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top