Zwiebach Pg 143: Defining the Current Tensor & Equation 8.55

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the current tensor as presented in Zwiebach's text, specifically focusing on its antisymmetry properties in relation to the antisymmetric matrix epsilon^{mu nu}. Participants are examining the implications of these properties as outlined in equation 8.55.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the definition of the current tensor and questioning the implications of its antisymmetry. There are discussions about the nature of the symmetric part of the tensor and how it relates to the overall equation. Some participants are attempting to understand the conditions under which the antisymmetry allows for certain simplifications in the equations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants raising questions about the definitions and properties of the current tensor. Some have provided insights into the implications of antisymmetry, while others are seeking clarification on specific points, such as the invertibility of antisymmetric matrices and the conditions under which certain equations hold.

Contextual Notes

There appears to be some ambiguity regarding the definitions and assumptions surrounding the current tensor and its properties, particularly in relation to the equations presented in Zwiebach's text. Participants are navigating these complexities without reaching a definitive consensus.

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 [itex]j_{01}[/itex] and add the same amount to [itex]j_{10}[/itex] and the sum [itex]\epsilon j[/itex] 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
[tex]j_{01} = \frac{1}{2}(j_{01} - j_{10}) = -\frac{1}{2}(X_{0}{\mathcal P}_{1} - X_{1}{\mathcal P}_{0})[/tex]
 
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
[tex]j_{01} = \frac{1}{2}(j_{01} - j_{10}) = -\frac{1}{2}(X_{0}{\mathcal P}_{1} - X_{1}{\mathcal P}_{0})[/tex]

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 [tex]\epsilon^{\mu \nu} M_{\mu \nu} = \epsilon^{\mu \nu} N_{\mu \nu}[/tex], [tex]M_{\mu \nu} = N_{\mu \nu}[/tex], right? How do you prove that?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K