What is the constant C for Hodge dual in tensor notation?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The constant C for the Hodge dual of a p-form A_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdots \mu_p} in d dimensions is defined as C = 1/p!, where p represents the number of contracted indices. This coefficient ensures that the formula for the Hodge dual, (*A)^{\nu_1 \nu_2 \cdots \nu_{d-p}} = C\epsilon^{\nu_1 \nu_2 \cdots \nu_{d-p}\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdots \mu_p}A_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdots \mu_p}, remains consistent for both the Hodge dual and its inverse relation. The discussion confirms that using this specific value for C allows the formula to be applicable across various dimensions and forms.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of p-forms in differential geometry
  • Familiarity with tensor notation and operations
  • Knowledge of the Levi-Civita symbol (ε) in multiple dimensions
  • Basic concepts of duality in linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol in various dimensions
  • Study the applications of Hodge duality in differential geometry
  • Explore the relationship between p-forms and their duals in higher-dimensional spaces
  • Learn about the implications of the constant C in physical theories, such as electromagnetism
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying differential geometry, particularly those interested in the applications of Hodge duality and tensor calculus.

praharmitra
Messages
308
Reaction score
1
So I know that the Hodge dual of a p-form A_{\mu_1 \mu_2\cdot \cdot \cdot \mu_p} in d dimensions is given by

<br /> (*A)^{\nu_1 \nu_2 \cdot \cdot \cdot \nu_{d-p}} = C\epsilon^{\nu_1 \nu_2 \cdot \cdot \cdot \nu_{d-p}\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdot \cdot \cdot \mu_p}A_{\mu_1 \mu_2\cdot \cdot \cdot \mu_p} <br />
where C is some number coefficient. I was wondering what the
constant C is for general p-forms in general d dimensions.
Also, what is the inverse relation? (I'm guessing it's the
same as above, but just checking.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
C can be anything you like, but if you use C = 1/p! where p is the number of contracted indices, the same formula works for both this formula and the inverse relation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K