Transforming Index to Matrix Form for Amateurs

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Marin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Index Matrix
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of tensor expressions from index notation to matrix form, focusing on specific examples from a provided document. Participants explore the mathematical and conceptual aspects of tensors, including covariant and contravariant indices, and the implications of these transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the transformation of tensor expressions, specifically expressions 13 and 16 from a document.
  • Another participant explains how to interpret the indices in the context of matrix entries, using specific examples to illustrate the calculation of matrix elements.
  • A participant raises a question about the differences between various tensor expressions involving upper and lower indices, noting the physical meaning behind these distinctions.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding the lack of discussion about basis vectors and metrics, which are essential for understanding the manipulation of tensors.
  • One participant attempts to clarify their earlier post by retyping equations in a more traditional format, seeking confirmation on their correctness and the implications of index placement.
  • Another participant discusses the interchangeability of upper and lower indices in Euclidean space and suggests that understanding bases and metrics is crucial for grasping tensor concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the transformation of tensors and the implications of index placement. There is no consensus on the physical meaning of the tensors discussed, and multiple viewpoints on the interpretation of the equations are present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the complexity of tensor algebra and the challenges posed by the mathematical notation, indicating that further foundational knowledge may be necessary for full comprehension.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in tensor algebra, particularly those who are beginners or seeking clarification on the transformation of tensor expressions and the significance of index notation.

Marin
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody!

I have a question concerning tensors and hope you could help me :)

http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~mbernha3/tensoren.pdf

I would like you to look at expressions 13 and 16 :) I hope you won't be bothered by the fact the file is in German. I'm was wandering how these transformations are being made (from the index form to the matrix form) :)

Take in consideration I'm just an amateur :D


Thanks in advance!

Marin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Lets look at (13). The a and c on the omega run like an index, that is a=x,y,z , c=x,y,z.
Then let the (x,x) be the first entrance in the matrix, and (y,x) be the next (the one directly below), just like you would say fx. entrance (2,3) now you just use (y,z) instead.

Now let's try to calculate (y,x), that is (remembering summing over repeated index)

\Omega^{yx} = \epsilon^{ybx} \omega_b = \sum_{b=x,y,z}\epsilon^{ybx} \omega_b = \epsilon^{yxx} \omega_x + \epsilon^{yyx} \omega_y + \epsilon^{yzx} \omega_z = 0 \omega_x + 0 \omega_y + 1 \omega_z = \omega_z

just like that entrance in the matrix, you see?
 
All they are doing is representing Aij as the number in the ith row, jth column of the matrix.
 
Thanks a lot, I got it :)

It's a little bit of tedious calculations, but I'll try and get these to examples by myself, to get some practice :)

Thanks once again :)
 
There's another question risen up :)

what's the difference between:

\Omega^{ac} = \epsilon^{abc}\omega_b

\Omega_{ac} = \epsilon_{abc}\omega^b

\Omega_a^c = \epsilon_a^b^c\omega_b

\Omega^a_c = \epsilon^a_b_c\omega^b

I know that the upper indexes are the contavariant, the lower - for the covariant components. But the matrix will always be one and the same. Maybe this has some physical meaning? And there are actually two more combinations to be made: e.g.

is \Omega_a^c = \epsilon_a^b^c\omega_b

equal to that \epsilon_a_b^c\omega^b

?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know what the thrust of your text is. But I don't see any references to basis vectors or metrics, which is what raising and lowering indeces is all about. Without the metric concept it must seem a bit of a mystery what sort of objects beyond arrays of numbers are being manipulated. Perhaps that comes in later chapters.

In the mean time, it may help to treat objects like the Levi-Civita tensor \epsilon^{ab}\:_c as a matrix that has vectors as elements (\epsilon^a)^b\:_c.

The basic equation that bridges matrices and tensors is

u = Tv, that becomes u^a = T^a\!_b v^b in tensors.

The column vector v is transformed to the column vector u. This requires that T have a raised index for rows and a lower index for columns.

A strange object like U_{ab}, that seems have rows in both directions can be viewed as a row vector of row vectors.
 
Last edited:
I apologise for the misunderstanding, I also try to learn LateX and it's a bit of complicated.
So, let's try again typing something:

: \\Omega^{ac} = \\epsilon^{abc}\\omega_b

: \\Omega_{ac} = \\epsilon_{abc}\\omega^b

: \\Omega_a\\^c = \\epsilon_a\\^b\\^c\\omega_b

: \\Omega^a\\_c = \\epsilon^a\\_b\\_c\\omega^b

are these equations correct and what's the difference between them. If they are correct, is every possible combination of upper and down indexes possible, in order to contract the 'b' abd get the initial tensor?

This part with vectors in the vectors and so on is already clear, but does not explain the physical meaning of Omega in 13 and L in 16 in:

http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/...3/tensoren.pdf

which transformed both give normal matrices, despite in the first case both indexes are up (contarvariant) and in the second - both are down (covariant) the tensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok, I give up latex, here it is the traditional way: O is omega e is epsilon and o i omega small, so:

O^(ac) = e^(abc)o_b
O_(ac) = e_(abc)o^b
O(_a/^c) = e(_a/^b/^c)o_b
O^(a/_c) = e(^a/_b/_c)o^b
 
Marin said:
ok, I give up latex, here it is the traditional way: O is omega e is epsilon and o i omega small, so:

O^(ac) = e^(abc)o_b
O_(ac) = e_(abc)o^b
O(_a/^c) = e(_a/^b/^c)o_b
O^(a/_c) = e(^a/_b/_c)o^b

I've tidied up post #5 for you. Click on each equation to see the code.
 
  • #10
cristo, thanks fore retyping the equations above :) So the command for LaTex is just '&#039; :) ?<br /> <br /> Btw, do you have any suggestions to my questions above? I&#039;m pretty interested in tensor algebra, but I find all Wikipedia definitions and expressions a bit out of my current mathematical abilities :(<br /> <br /> And another question: Do you happen to know, where I can download Latex from, so that I could practise at home and not make these lame mistakes over here?<br /> <br /> with best regards, Marin
 
  • #11
Martin-- In Euclidian space in Cartesian coordinates, upper and lower indices are often interchangable. This is why I brought up bases and metrics. Chapter 1 may have as well be titled tensors for the physical sciences: http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/" Open the .dpf 1. Special Relativity and Flat Spacetime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Thanks, Phrak!

I got it :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K