What is the history and significance of tensor fields in physics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the history and significance of tensor fields in physics, exploring their applications in various fields, particularly in relation to relativity and engineering. Participants examine the mathematical tools associated with tensor fields and their historical development, as well as their relevance in modern physics and engineering practices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that relativity is often overlooked by engineers unless directly applicable, with specific examples like GPS and particle accelerators mentioned.
  • Others argue that the mathematical tools from relativistic mechanics, such as tensors and differential forms, have applications in engineering mechanics.
  • A participant expresses that understanding relativity does not necessarily require mastery of tensors, sharing a personal perspective on learning relativity with a limited mathematical background.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of mathematical methods predating relativity, with references to notable mathematicians and their contributions.
  • Some participants assert that the invention of tensors led to significant paradigm shifts in understanding physics, while others emphasize that numerical methods have also played a crucial role in practical applications.
  • One participant raises the idea that the concepts of tensor fields may have existed before the formal naming and notation were established, citing examples from continuum mechanics.
  • References to the development of tensor calculus and its historical significance in relation to Einstein's theory of general relativity are mentioned.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the necessity of tensors for understanding relativity, the historical significance of tensor fields, and the impact of numerical methods versus theoretical advancements. No consensus is reached on these points.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions highlight the limitations of understanding tensor fields without a solid foundation in earlier physics concepts, and there are unresolved questions about the historical use of tensor notation and its evolution.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in physics and engineering, particularly those curious about the mathematical foundations of tensor fields and their historical development in relation to modern applications.

Rate your own interest in Einstein's relativity

  • Professional interest

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Interested (outside my field)

    Votes: 13 86.7%
  • Mild curiosity

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • No interest

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
Jorrie
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
143
Relativity is not a thing your nominal engineer ever needs. Some engineers have a curiosity that drives them to find out what they can about the topic. Some read all the popular books and still have little 'handles' on it. Most just ignore it, unless their work somehow requires it.

There are a few engineering environments where relativity plays an important role. I can think of GPS systems designs, particle accelerators and perhaps some advanced optical systems design, especially for astronomy.

Which others are there?

- Jorrie
___________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The thing is that the mathematical tools that are now common in relativistic mechanics that might have application to engineering mechanics. The increasing use of differential forms in electrical engineering and continuum mehcanics is one example. The ubiquitous use of tensors is another.
 
Tensors or not?

rdt2 said:
The thing is that the mathematical tools that are now common in relativistic mechanics that might have application to engineering mechanics. ...

True - and once one knows those mathematical tools, relativity is a breeze... :wink:

However, I found that one can understand (if not quite master) a good deal of relativity without tensors.
 
Last edited:
Jorrie said:
I found that one can understand (if not quite master) a good deal of relativity without tensors.

That's a reflection of my own experience. I have a grade 9 math level, but I can feel relativity. If you want to accompish anything with it, however, you need the educational background. It's sort of like my approach to engineering. I can design and build just about anything that I might ever need in my life, and have a few patent-pending things on the go... but if you value your life, don't ever cross a bridge that I make. :biggrin:
 
rdt2 said:
The thing is that the mathematical tools that are now common in relativistic mechanics that might have application to engineering mechanics. The increasing use of differential forms in electrical engineering and continuum mehcanics is one example. The ubiquitous use of tensors is another.

The basic maths behind modern computational methods in contimuum and fluid mechanics (variational principles, integral equations, etc) all predate relativity.

For example

Euler: 1707-1783
Lagrange: 1736-1813
Fourier: 1768-1830
Gauss: 1777-1855
Navier: 1785-1836
Green: 1793-1840
Stokes: 1819-1903

The practical applications of the maths were a consequence of the invention of electronic computers, not of Einstein.
 
AlephZero said:
The basic maths behind modern computational methods in contimuum and fluid mechanics (variational principles, integral equations, etc) all predate relativity.

For example

Euler: 1707-1783
Lagrange: 1736-1813
Fourier: 1768-1830
Gauss: 1777-1855
Navier: 1785-1836
Green: 1793-1840
Stokes: 1819-1903

The practical applications of the maths were a consequence of the invention of electronic computers, not of Einstein.

I have no argument with what you say about numerical methods and the practical results they generate - my own field is finite element analysis. However, improvements in numerical methods seldom lead to paradigm shifts in understanding. I stick by my claim that the invention (discovery?) of tensors did exactly that. And in the light of differential forms, Stokes Theorem is seen as a special case of a broader principle.
 
Burning the poll

I'm interested but not professionally, since as an engineer I have received an education for being interested in all aspects of physics. That's why we are called 4x4 in industrial and research environments. On the contrary, I've seen so many students and professors of 'advanced' physics such as relativity theory not interested on 'low level' physics that I'm suspicious that those people who know a lot about that stuff don't have a solid basis on 'supposed' easier parts of the physics, and that is a shame.
 
It would be interesting to find out the history of the use of tensor fields in physics. Possibly the concepts were being used before the name tensor was invented and the modern notation was developed.

E.g. in continuum mechanics there's the Cauchy and Piola-Kirchoff stress tensors, and the Green-Lagrange strain tensor. I don't know what notation Cauchy, Green, etc actually used, but presumably the meaning of their notation was the same as the modern version.
 
Tensor Fields

AlephZero said:
It would be interesting to find out the history of the use of tensor fields in physics. Possibly the concepts were being used before the name tensor was invented and the modern notation was developed.

From Wikipedia: "Tensor calculus was developed around 1890 by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro under the title absolute differential calculus, and was made accessible to many mathematicians by the publication of Tullio Levi-Civita's 1900 classic text of the same name (in Italian; translations followed). In the 20th century, the subject came to be known as tensor analysis, and achieved broader acceptance with the introduction of Einstein's theory of general relativity, around 1915."
and
"Many mathematical structures informally called 'tensors' are actually 'tensor fields' —an abstraction of tensors to field, wherein tensorial quantities vary from point to point. Differential equations posed in terms of tensor quantities are basic to modern mathematical physics, so that methods of differential calculus are also applied to tensors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor"

Any other interesting references?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K