Zwiebach Pg 143: Defining the Current Tensor & Equation 8.55

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the definition of the current tensor in Zwiebach's text, specifically addressing its antisymmetry due to multiplication by the antisymmetric matrix epsilon^{mu nu}. It clarifies that while equation 8.55 provides a sum for the current tensor, it does not fully define it, allowing for the addition of symmetric components without altering the equation. Once the current tensor is assumed to be antisymmetric, the arbitrary additions are eliminated, enabling direct comparisons of antisymmetric factors. The conversation also touches on the misconception regarding the invertibility of antisymmetric matrices, emphasizing that Zwiebach's claim pertains to the relationship between two antisymmetric matrices under specific conditions. This highlights the nuanced understanding required for the properties of antisymmetric tensors in the context of the equations presented.
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


On page 143, Zwiebach says that we can define the current tenser to be antisymmetric in mu and nu since it is multiplied by the antisymmetric matrix epsilon^{mu nu}--any symmetric part would drop out of the left hand-side.

But I thought it already was defined in equation 8.55? What does he mean that the symmetric part would drop out?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
On page 143, Zwiebach says that we can define the current tenser to be antisymmetric in mu and nu since it is multiplied by the antisymmetric matrix epsilon^{mu nu}--any symmetric part would drop out of the left hand-side.

But I thought it already was defined in equation 8.55? What does he mean that the symmetric part would drop out?
Equation (8.55) does not completely define j, only the sum. For instance, you could add an amount to j_{01} and add the same amount to j_{10} and the sum \epsilon j would remain the same. This is what he means by "the symmetric part would drop out."
 
That makes sense. Then below that he says that "the currents can be read directly from this equation because the factor multiplying epsilon^{mu nu} on the RHS is explicitely antisymmetric"?

I do not see why the antisymmetry j^alpha_{mu nu} allows you to do that since you are still summing over 2 indices?
 
ehrenfest said:
I do not see why the antisymmetry j^alpha_{mu nu} allows you to do that since you are still summing over 2 indices?
Before you assume that j is antisymmetric, you have some play in the values of j since you can add a symmetric part and equation (8.55) will still hold. However, once you assume that j is antisymmetric, that arbitrariness is gone and you can equate the antisymmetic factors on both sides for each index. For instance
j_{01} = \frac{1}{2}(j_{01} - j_{10}) = -\frac{1}{2}(X_{0}{\mathcal P}_{1} - X_{1}{\mathcal P}_{0})
 
jimmysnyder said:
Before you assume that j is antisymmetric, you have some play in the values of j since you can add a symmetric part and equation (8.55) will still hold. However, once you assume that j is antisymmetric, that arbitrariness is gone and you can equate the antisymmetic factors on both sides for each index. For instance
j_{01} = \frac{1}{2}(j_{01} - j_{10}) = -\frac{1}{2}(X_{0}{\mathcal P}_{1} - X_{1}{\mathcal P}_{0})

Yes. I understand that is what Zwiebach is claiming; its just that the proof that every antisymmetric matrix is invertible isn't coming to me...
 
ehrenfest said:
Yes. I understand that is what Zwiebach is claiming; its just that the proof that every antisymmetric matrix is invertible isn't coming to me...
Zwiebach doesn't claim that every antisymmetric matrix is invertible and it isn't true.
 
You're right. He is claiming that if epsilon^{\mu \nu} is antisymmetric and M^{\mu \nu} is antisymmetric, then if \epsilon^{\mu \nu} M_{\mu \nu} = \epsilon^{\mu \nu} N_{\mu \nu}, M_{\mu \nu} = N_{\mu \nu}, right? How do you prove that?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K