Why is the volume element a scalar density of weight -1?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the volume element in the context of general relativity, specifically addressing its classification as a scalar density of weight -1 according to Ray d'Inverno, in contrast to the more common view that it should be a scalar density of weight +1. The scope includes theoretical aspects of tensor weights and transformations related to the metric and Jacobian.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references d'Inverno's definition of the volume element as a scalar density of weight -1, which transforms with the inverse of the Jacobian.
  • Another participant argues that the conventional definition of weight considers the volume element as transforming with the Jacobian, thus categorizing it as a scalar density of weight +1.
  • A participant suggests that the definitions of tensor weights should align, as the metric transforms with the square of the Jacobian, implying a connection between the two definitions.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of clarity regarding d'Inverno's definitions and their implications for the Lagrangian's classification as a scalar of weight +1.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the mathematical transcription of d'Inverno's argument but attempts to explain that it involves the generalized Kronecker delta and the Levi-Civita tensor, leading to the weight of -1.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, as there are competing views on the correct classification of the volume element's weight and the reasoning behind d'Inverno's definitions.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of potential confusion regarding notation and terminology, as well as the need for clarity on the definitions used by d'Inverno compared to other sources. The discussion highlights unresolved aspects of the mathematical definitions and their implications.

madness
Messages
813
Reaction score
69
In Ray d'Inverno's book on general relativity, he defines the volume element in a way which makes it a scalar density of weight -1, meaning it transforms with the inverse of the Jacobian. Every other source I have looked at seems to say it should transform with the Jacobian, making it a scalar density of weight +1. Can anyone clarify this for me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't read d'Inverno's book but the conventional way of defining the weight is to say that the weight of any tensorial quantity is the power of [itex]g^{1/2}[/itex] that appears in that quantity. Since the volume element is just [itex]g^{1/2}[/itex], it's a weight 1 quantity.
 
The definition of tensor weights as transforming with the square root of the metric should be equivalent to the definition of transforming with the Jacobian, since the metric transforms with the square of the Jacobian. In d'Inverno's book it is defined in terms of the Jacobian.
His definition of a volume element doesn't appear to include the metric, and is actually stated to be a scalar density of weight -1 and not +1 as you have stated. This is my problem, I don't understand where his definition has come from.
He uses this fact to demand that the Lagrangian is a scalar of weight +1, and include the square root of the determinant here.
Can anyone explain this discrepancy with volume definitions?
 
Can nobody help with this?
 
madness said:
Can nobody help with this?

You may need to transcribe the relevant passages here.
It may simply be a confusion in notation or terminology.
(Unfortunately, there are no book previews from Google or Amazon.)
 
I'm not sure how to transcribe the mathematics but I can try to explain his argument. He first defines a volume element for an m dimensional subspace of a manifold in a way that makes it an mth rank contravariant tensor tensor. It involves the generalised kronecker delta symbol. He later contracts this with the levi-cevita tensor (which gives the weight of -1). I'm not sure if this is any help at all. My problem is that I don't know why he has chosen any of his definitions (why it is really a volume), and why it differs from other sources.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K