High School Tensor Product, Basis Vectors and Tensor Components

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between tensor components and basis vectors in vector and dual vector spaces. The user attempts to derive the tensor expression T from its components and vice versa, using the properties of tensor products and dual bases. They express their understanding that T represents a sum of components multiplied by basis vectors and emphasize the need to consider the dual basis when transitioning between the two forms. The response confirms the user's approach and clarifies the interpretation of the equations, reinforcing the importance of the dual basis in the context of curved manifolds. Overall, the exchange enhances understanding of tensor relationships in mathematical physics.
nigelscott
Messages
133
Reaction score
4
I am trying to figure how to get 1. from 2. and vice versa where the e's are bases for the vector space and θ's are bases for the dual vector space.

1. T = Tμνσρ(eμ ⊗ eν ⊗ θσ ⊗ θρ)

2. Tμνσρ = T(θμν,eσ,eρ)

My attempt is as follows:

2. into 1. gives T = T(θμν,eσ,eρ)(eμ ⊗ eν ⊗ θσ ⊗ θρ)

Now if I assume that (θμν,eσ,eρ) Ξ (θμ ⊗ θν ⊗ eσ ⊗ eρ) this becomes:

T = T(θμ ⊗ θν ⊗ eσ ⊗ eρ)(eμ ⊗ eν ⊗ eσ ⊗ θρ)

= θμeμ ⊗ θνeν ⊗ eσθσ ⊗ eρθρ

Now using θνeμ = δνμ this becomes:

T = T(I ⊗ I ⊗ I ⊗ I)

So T = T

This seems to work but I'm not sure if this is the correct way to do it. I'm shaky on the tensor product stuff and my interpretation of T(_,_,_,_). Does this look right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nigelscott said:
I am trying to figure how to get 1. from 2. and vice versa where the e's are bases for the vector space and θ's are bases for the dual vector space.

1. T = Tμνσρ(eμ ⊗ eν ⊗ θσ ⊗ θρ)

2. Tμνσρ = T(θμν,eσ,eρ)

My attempt is as follows:

2. into 1. gives T = T(θμν,eσ,eρ)(eμ ⊗ eν ⊗ θσ ⊗ θρ)

Now if I assume that (θμν,eσ,eρ) Ξ (θμ ⊗ θν ⊗ eσ ⊗ eρ) this becomes:

T = T(θμ ⊗ θν ⊗ eσ ⊗ eρ)(eμ ⊗ eν ⊗ eσ ⊗ θρ)

= θμeμ ⊗ θνeν ⊗ eσθσ ⊗ eρθρ

Now using θνeμ = δνμ this becomes:

T = T(I ⊗ I ⊗ I ⊗ I)

So T = T

This seems to work but I'm not sure if this is the correct way to do it. I'm shaky on the tensor product stuff and my interpretation of T(_,_,_,_). Does this look right?

It looks all right to me!

Let's try to intuitively understand what you did.

##T## is the generalization of a vector, in the sense that, ##T## is simply the sum of a bunch of components ##{T^{\mu\nu}}_{\sigma\rho}## multiplied by basis vectors ##e_{\mu} \otimes e_{\nu} \otimes \theta^{\sigma}\otimes \theta^{\rho}##. This is the interpretation of equation ##1## in your post.

Therefore, in order to get the component ##{T^{\mu\nu}}_{\sigma\rho}##, you would naively want to multiply the basis vector ##e_{\mu} \otimes e_{\nu} \otimes \theta^{\sigma}\otimes \theta^{\rho}## with itself. But then, you realize that ##T## exists not in flat space, but on a curved manifold. Therefore, you multiply the basis vector ##e_{\mu} \otimes e_{\nu} \otimes \theta^{\sigma}\otimes \theta^{\rho}## not with itself, but by its dual basis vector ##\theta^{\mu} \otimes \theta^{\nu} \otimes e_{\sigma} \otimes e_{\rho}##. That's exactly the interpretation of equation ##2## in your post.

Your check of the consistency of equations ##1## and ##2## is simply a mathematical way of rewriting my above two paragraphs.
 
Let me know if my answer is clear, or if there's anything that you would need clarification with.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K