Tensor Notation for Triple Scalar Product Squared

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the triple scalar product of the vectors (A x B), (B x C), and (C x A) is equal to the square of the triple scalar product of vectors A, B, and C, using tensor notation. Participants suggest starting with the expression for the triple scalar product ε_{ijk}A_{i}B_{j}C_{k} and emphasize the importance of correctly interpreting the problem. A key identity involving the Levi-Civita symbol is introduced to aid in simplifying the expressions. The conversation highlights the need to compute the cross products correctly before taking the dot product, ensuring the right approach to reach the final result. Overall, the participants are collaboratively navigating the complexities of tensor notation and vector identities to solve the problem.
forestmine
Messages
201
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi all,

Here's the problem:

Prove, in tensor notation, that the triple scalar product of (A x B), (B x C), and (C x A), is equal to the square of the triple scalar product of A, B, and C.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I started by looking at the triple scalar product of A, B, and C. I know that I can write that as ε_{ijk}A_{i}B_{j}C_{k}. This is about as far as I got.

Initially, I did something different that got me further, but I think I was interpreting the problem incorrectly. What I did was set a = (AxB), b = (BxC), and c = (CxA), thinking that the square of the triple scalar product was referring to the triple scalar product of a, b, and c, but upon reading the problem again, I don't think that that's right.

That being said, I'm not sure where to go from here.

I know that the subject of tensors is a particularly difficult one to discuss over the web, especially without just spelling out the answer -- which I'm certainly not looking for. But that being said, I'm pretty lost, and could use a lot of help in the right direction.

Thanks so much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
forestmine said:

Homework Statement



Hi all,

Here's the problem:

Prove, in tensor notation, that the triple scalar product of (A x B), (B x C), and (C x A), is equal to the square of the triple scalar product of A, B, and C.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I started by looking at the triple scalar product of A, B, and C. I know that I can write that as ε_{ijk}A_{i}B_{j}C_{k}. This is about as far as I got.

Initially, I did something different that got me further, but I think I was interpreting the problem incorrectly. What I did was set a = (AxB), b = (BxC), and c = (CxA), thinking that the square of the triple scalar product was referring to the triple scalar product of a, b, and c, but upon reading the problem again, I don't think that that's right.

That being said, I'm not sure where to go from here.

I know that the subject of tensors is a particularly difficult one to discuss over the web, especially without just spelling out the answer -- which I'm certainly not looking for. But that being said, I'm pretty lost, and could use a lot of help in the right direction.

Thanks so much!

Knowing that \vec{A}\cdot(\vec{B}\times\vec{C}) = \epsilon_{ijk}A_{i}B_{j}C_{k} is an excellent start.

The next thing I would try to figure out is how to express the cross product between two cross products (\vec{A}\times \vec{B})\times(\vec{B}\times\vec{C})

The following identity should be useful (note that the k index is repeated, and so summed over)
\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{k\ell m} = \delta_{i\ell}\delta_{jm}-\delta_{im}\delta_{j\ell}
With this identity, you can show that
\vec{A}\times (\vec{B}\times\vec{C}) =(\vec{A}\cdot\vec{C})\vec{B}-(\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B})\vec{C}
among other vector identities.
 
Thanks for the response!

Ok, well, I know that (AxB)_{i} = ε_{ijk}A_{j}B_{k}. And I can say that, (BxC)_{i} = ε_{ilm}B_{l}C_{m}.

If I write that all as one term,
ε_{ijk}A_{j}B_{k}ε_{ilm}B_{l}C_{m}

then that equals,

(δ_{jl}δ_{km} - δ_{jm}δ_{kl})A_{j}B_{k}B_{l}C_{m}

and I know that I can do some further simplification of that, but I'm worried about simplifying it too much before incorporating yet the third cross product. Am I on the right track at least?
 
Yes this is exactly on the right track. The formula you give would be for the dot product of the two cross products, i.e., (\vec{A}\times\vec{B})\cdot(\vec{B}\times\vec{C}). If each vector in the second cross product is expressed as a cross product of two other vectors, you should be able to get a final result.
 
jfizzix said:
Yes this is exactly on the right track. The formula you give would be for the dot product of the two cross products, i.e., (\vec{A}\times\vec{B})\cdot(\vec{B}\times\vec{C}). If each vector in the second cross product is expressed as a cross product of two other vectors, you should be able to get a final result.

Hm, ok, I'm not sure I follow here. If I computed the dot product of two cross products, isn't that wrong, in that I should first compute the cross product of (BxC) x (CxA), before taking the dot product that I did in the step before?
 
The expression you started with, ##(\varepsilon_{ijk}A_j B_k)(\varepsilon_{ilm}B_l C_m)##, is equal to ##(\vec{A}\times\vec{B})_i (\vec{B}\times\vec{C})_i##, which is equal to ##(\vec{A}\times\vec{B})\cdot(\vec{B}\times\vec{C})##. That's not what you want, right? So don't combine the two cross products that way.

Go back to your previous attempt where you said
\begin{align*}
\vec{a} &= \vec{A}\times\vec{B} \\
\vec{b} &= \vec{B}\times\vec{C} \\
\vec{c} &= \vec{C}\times\vec{A}
\end{align*} The triple scalar product of those three vectors is ##\varepsilon_{ijk}a_i b_j c_k##. Now you want to substitute in expressions for ##a_i## in terms of the components of ##\vec{A}## and ##\vec{B}##, and so on, and the simplify it.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
738
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K