Understanding Kronecker Delta: Why & How?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimeRip496
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Delta
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Kronecker delta and the Levi-Civita symbol, specifically their roles in defining orientations and volumes in space-time. The Levi-Civita symbol, denoted as ##\epsilon_{abcd}##, is essential for establishing orientation in a manifold and performing volume integrals. It is not expressible solely in terms of the Kronecker delta, but relationships such as ##\epsilon^{abcd}\epsilon_{efgh} = -4! \delta^{[a}{}{}_{e}...\delta^{d]}{}{}_{h}## illustrate their connection. Understanding these concepts is crucial for working with Riemannian and Lorentzian manifolds in general relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemannian geometry
  • Familiarity with differential forms and volume elements
  • Knowledge of general relativity concepts
  • Basic proficiency in tensor calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol in various dimensions
  • Learn about the role of the Kronecker delta in tensor operations
  • Explore the implications of orientability in manifolds
  • Investigate the applications of the Levi-Civita symbol in general relativity
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and professionals in mathematics and physics, particularly those focusing on general relativity, differential geometry, and tensor analysis.

TimeRip496
Messages
249
Reaction score
5
I know what is it but I can't figure out the rationale behind it. As in why do we need it? Moreover I don't know how to represent it in terms of kronecker delta. How do you do that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
TimeRip496 said:
I know what is it but I can't figure out the rationale behind it. As in why do we need it? Moreover I don't know how to represent it in terms of kronecker delta. How do you do that?

Levi-Civita is a person who has several different concepts attached to his name, including the Levi-Civita symbol, the Levi-Civita connection, and probably others. So which one are you talking about?
 
stevendaryl said:
Levi-Civita is a person who has several different concepts attached to his name, including the Levi-Civita symbol, the Levi-Civita connection, and probably others. So which one are you talking about?
The Levi Civita symbol
 
TimeRip496 said:
I know what is it but I can't figure out the rationale behind it. As in why do we need it? Moreover I don't know how to represent it in terms of kronecker delta. How do you do that?

##\epsilon_{abcd}## is a non-vanishing 4-form on a space-time ##(M,g_{ab})## so at the basic level it allows one to define an orientation on the space-time. Indeed a space-time is defined to be orientable if it possesses a non-vanishing 4-form. What makes ##\epsilon_{abcd}## unique (up to a sign) on top of it being an orientation is its definition ##\epsilon^{abcd}\epsilon_{abcd} = -4!## i.e. it is determined by ##g_{ab}## and as such is called a volume element because if ##v^a_1,...,v^a_4## are a set of four arbitrary vectors in ##T_pM## for any ##p##, then ##\epsilon_{abcd}v^a_1...v^a_4## is the volume of the parallelepiped determined by these four vectors. So, in summary, we need ##\epsilon_{abcd}## in order to define an orientation on space-time and subsequently do volume integrals on space-time. This of course carries over to other dimensions and to Riemannian manifolds, not just Lorentzian manifolds. C.f. Wald Appendix B.

You cannot express ##\epsilon_{abcd}## by itself in terms of ##\delta_{ab}## but you can for example show that ##\epsilon^{abcd}\epsilon_{efgh} = -4! \delta^{[a}{}{}_{e}...\delta^{d]}{}{}_{h}## and similarly for other dimensions. C.f. Wald Appendix B.
 
WannabeNewton said:
##\epsilon_{abcd}## is a non-vanishing 4-form on a space-time ##(M,g_{ab})## so at the basic level it allows one to define an orientation on the space-time. Indeed a space-time is defined to be orientable if it possesses a non-vanishing 4-form. What makes ##\epsilon_{abcd}## unique (up to a sign) on top of it being an orientation is its definition ##\epsilon^{abcd}\epsilon_{abcd} = -4!## i.e. it is determined by ##g_{ab}## and as such is called a volume element because if ##v^a_1,...,v^a_4## are a set of four arbitrary vectors in ##T_pM## for any ##p##, then ##\epsilon_{abcd}v^a_1...v^a_4## is the volume of the parallelepiped determined by these four vectors. So, in summary, we need ##\epsilon_{abcd}## in order to define an orientation on space-time and subsequently do volume integrals on space-time. This of course carries over to other dimensions and to Riemannian manifolds, not just Lorentzian manifolds. C.f. Wald Appendix B.

You cannot express ##\epsilon_{abcd}## by itself in terms of ##\delta_{ab}## but you can for example show that ##\epsilon^{abcd}\epsilon_{efgh} = -4! \delta^{[a}{}{}_{e}...\delta^{d]}{}{}_{h}## and similarly for other dimensions. C.f. Wald Appendix B.
Thanks for the reply. But is there a way you can simplify it? Cause I have difficulty following.
 
As I noted before, I'm still learning this too, so any criticisms of the following are probably true. :D

You can define spaces with or without certain properties that you might naively think of as intrinsic to the very notion of a space. For example you can define a space without a metric, in which case there is no notion of distance along a path. It's just a set of points. The connection relates vectors in different tangent spaces and ends up defining the geodesics - giving a notion of a "straight line". WBN is saying that it's possible to define a space with such notions as distance and geodesics without necessarily being able to define an elementary volume, basically because that notion relies on orientability, the ordering of the bases. The Levi-Civita symbol defines the notion that one can have an elementary volume by defining the notion of left- and right-handed bases.

Most of the manifolds you'll encounter in GR are equipped with a Levi-Civita symbol. I think someone here said that some exotic space-times like closed timelike curves aren't, which is why I say "most" and not "all", but don't take my word for that.
 
TimeRip496 said:
I know what is it but I can't figure out the rationale behind it. As in why do we need it?
It simplifies both definitions and calculations. For example, can you find a simpler proof of ##\nabla\cdot(\nabla\times f)=0## than this?
$$\nabla\cdot(\nabla\times f)= \partial_i(\varepsilon_{ijk}\partial_j f) =\varepsilon_{ijk}\partial_i\partial_j f=0.$$

TimeRip496 said:
Moreover I don't know how to represent it in terms of kronecker delta. How do you do that?
Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about how to prove identities like ##\varepsilon_{ijk}\varepsilon_{ijl}=\delta_{kl}##?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
910
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K