Home / Math and Physics Files / Math / Curvilinear Systems / Tensor Doc and Support / Files related to May 2015 update
try to show the two tensorized forms are the same v4
DOCX · 21.8 KB
Open DOCX file
A short Word note by Phil, dated 1.11.15, from the files for the May 2015 update of his curvilinear tensor document. It starts from equations 15.7.9 and 15.2.8, reduces the claim to a contracted-index identity, and uses the epsilon-epsilon identity (D,11,10). It then transforms with orthogonal matrices R and finishes with R^T R = identity, so the two forms agree.
AI-written summary; may contain errors.
Extracted text (machine-read; may contain errors)
Show two tensorized forms are same v 4 PhL 1.11.15
Here are the "two forms" for (B)'n
(B)'n = (B'j;j);n – g'-1/2ε'nab(g'-1/2g'bcε'cdeB'e;d);a (15.7.9)
(B)'n = B'n;j;j . (15.2.8)
I can simplify the first line using what I now know so it reads,
(B)'n = (B'j;j);n – g'-1/2ε'nab(g'-1/2g'bcε'cdeB'e;d);a
= (B'j;j);n – g'-1/2ε'nabg'-1/2ε'cdeg'bc B'e;d;a !!
= (B'j;j);n – g'-1ε'nab ε'cdeg'bc B'e;d;a
= (B'j;j);n – g'-1ε'nab ε'bde B'e;d;a
So our entire task is reduced to showing this fact
B'n;j;j = B'j;j;n – g'-1ε'nab ε'bde B'e;d;a ?
We would like to get all the B indices to the same level, so let's choose B*** so start with
B'n;j;j = B'j;j;n – g'-1ε'nab ε'bde B'e;d;a ?
which I choose to rewrite as
B'n;a;a = B'e;e;n – g'-1ε'nab ε'bde B'e;d;a ?
Now we have three different "tilts" to worry about on the B indices. Let's process the first one
B'n;a;a = δneB'e;a;a = δneδad B'e;d;a
Now process the second term
B'e;e;n = g'edB'e;d;n = g'edg'naB'e;da
The problem is then to prove that this is true
δneδad B'e;d;a = g'ed g'na B'e;d;a – g'-1ε'nab ε'bde B'e;d;a ?
or
[ δneδad – g'ed g'na + g'-1ε'nab ε'bde ] B'e;d;a = 0 ?
or
[ δneδad – g'ed g'na + g'-1ε'bna ε'bde ] B'e;d;a = 0 ?
Now consider identity (D,11,10) which says
|g'|-1 ε'cabε'ca'b' = δaa'δbb' – δab'δba'
I will ignore the abs value and clear that up later. So assume the identity says
g'-1 ε'cabε'ca'b' = δaa'δbb' – δab'δba'
or
g'-1 ε'bnaε'bde = δdnδea – δdaδen
Then our equation of interest is this
[ δneδad – g'ed g'na + δdnδea – δdaδen ] B'e;d;a = 0
or
[ – g'ed g'na + δdnδea] B'e;d;a = 0 n fixed
The bracket [..] does not vanish, but now consider
[ – g'ed g'na + δdnδea] ReERdDRaA BE;D;A = 0 ?
[ – g'ed g'na + δdnδea] ReERdDRaA BE,D,A = 0 ?
[ – g'ed g'na + δdnδea] ReERdDRaA ∂D∂ABE = 0 ?
– g'ed g'naReERdDRaA ∂D∂ABE +δdnδea ReERdDRaA ∂D∂ABE = 0 ?
– RdERdDRnA ∂D∂ABE + RdERnDRdA ∂D∂ABE = 0 ?
In the second term do D↔A and then reorder the derivatives
– RdERdDRnA ∂D∂ABE + RdERnARdD ∂D∂ABE = 0 ?
– (RdERdD)RnA ∂D∂ABE + (RdERdD) RnA ∂D∂ABE = 0 ?
– (δED)RnA ∂D∂ABE + (δED) RnA ∂D∂ABE = 0 ?
Since this last equation is obviously true, we go back up erasing question marks and we have then shown that the two tensorizations are in fact the same!