Prove the transformation is scalar

In summary: Oh wait, how come \epsilon^{ijk} appeared from the transformationd^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3and I thought the transformation should involve indices? Why use numbers and introduce a different type of tensor?It is because the infinitesimal volume element is a scalar and therefore transforms as a scalar under orthogonal transformations. And since the Jacobian determinant is a scalar, it cancels out with the infinitesimal volume element, leaving us with the totally antisymmetric epsilon tensor. This is just a different representation of the same transformation.
  • #1
Whitehole
132
4

Homework Statement


1.) Prove that the infinitesimal volume element d3x is a scalar
2.) Let Aijk be a totally antisymmetric tensor. Prove that it transforms as a scalar.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

[/B]
1.) Rkh = ∂x'h/∂xk

By coordinate transformation, x'h = Rkh xk

dx'h = (∂x'h/∂xk) (∂xk/∂x'j) (∂x'i/∂xj) dxj

dx'h = δih Rji dxj

dx'h = Rjh dxj

This shows that the differential doesn't affect the transformation hence by performing the differential three times it would not affect the transformation, that is, it is a scalar. Can anyone verify if this is correct?

2.)
A'mnl = ( T'mnl - T'lnm )
= RimRjnRklTmnl - RklRjnRimTlnm
= RimRjnRkl(Tmnl - Tlnm)

What should I do next here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
1. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that? In fact I am not even sure that the infinitesimal volume is indeed a scalar...? It should be transformed with the Jacobian determinant of the transformation (take for example the [itex]dV_{spherical}[/itex] and the [itex]dV_{cartesian}[/itex]. Obviously going from (x,y,z) to (x',y',z')=(r,θ,φ) doesn't keep dV the same. In cartesian it's dx dy dz (fine), in spherical it's not dr dθ dφ.

2. What is T?
 
  • #3
ChrisVer said:
1. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that? In fact I am not even sure that the infinitesimal volume is indeed a scalar...? It should be transformed with the Jacobian determinant of the transformation (take for example the [itex]dV_{spherical}[/itex] and the [itex]dV_{cartesian}[/itex]. Obviously going from (x,y,z) to (x',y',z')=(r,θ,φ) doesn't keep dV the same. In cartesian it's dx dy dz (fine), in spherical it's not dr dθ dφ.

2. What is T?
It is an orthogonal transformation so I'm trying to prove that it is a scalar under that transformation. T is an antisymmetric tensor.
 
  • #4
Whitehole said:
I'm trying to prove that it is a scalar under that transformation.
You ended up in:
[itex]dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j[/itex]
right?
Now you should check what is:
[itex]d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3[/itex]
why? because by the form you ended at, I cannot see how you deduce that it's a scalar, but instead that dxi are the components of a vector.

2. Well if you have:
[itex]\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]
can you show that if [itex]i=j[/itex] is [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex]? Similar for the rest cases?
 
  • #5
ChrisVer said:
You ended up in:
[itex]dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j[/itex]
right?
Now you should check what is:
[itex]d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3[/itex]
why? because by the form you ended at, I cannot see how you deduce that it's a scalar, but instead that dxi are the components of a vector.

2. Well if you have:
[itex]\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]
can you show that if [itex]i=j[/itex] is [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex]? Similar for the rest cases?
ChrisVer said:
You ended up in:
[itex]dx'^h = R^{jh}dx^j[/itex]
right?
Now you should check what is:
[itex]d^3x' \equiv dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3[/itex]
why? because by the form you ended at, I cannot see how you deduce that it's a scalar, but instead that dxi are the components of a vector.

2. Well if you have:
[itex]\epsilon'^{ijk} = R^{im} R^{js} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]
can you show that if [itex]i=j[/itex] is [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex]? Similar for the rest cases?
For the first part I think the argument will be the same as part two because,

[itex]d^3x' \equiv (dx'^1)^i (dx'^2)^j (dx'^3)^k = R^{im}R^{js}R^{kt}(dx^1)^m (dx^2)^s (dx^3)^t[/itex]

So I need to do something to loose those R's (which is the case in part two)

For part two, by setting i=j then take the sum,

[itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = ΣR^{im} R^{is} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]

[itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = δ^{ms} R^{kt} \epsilon^{mst}[/itex]

[itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = R^{kt} \epsilon^{mmt}[/itex]

By definition, [itex]\epsilon^{mmt}=0[/itex] if m=s so, [itex]Σ\epsilon'^{iik} = 0[/itex]

Is this what you want me to show? Is it correct that by definition [itex]\epsilon^{mmt}=0[/itex] if m=s?
 
  • #6
I don't think that "summing" can help... you are trying to prove that for example [itex]\epsilon'^{11a}=\epsilon'^{22a}=\epsilon'^{33a} =0[/itex] and not [itex]\epsilon'^{11a}+\epsilon'^{22a}+\epsilon'^{33a} =0[/itex]...
just set the index [itex]\epsilon'^{ijk}[/itex] i=j (don't sum)... and see what you get...

and yes, by definition that's how it is (that's why it's a totally-antisymmetric tensor)...
if [itex]\epsilon^{mnr}[/itex] is a totally antisymmetric tensor then the following is true:
[itex]\epsilon^{mnr}=-\epsilon^{nmr}[/itex] (along with other permutations).
so if [itex]m=n[/itex] let's say it's m=n=1 then:
[itex]\epsilon^{11r}=-\epsilon^{11r}[/itex] (you ended up with a=-a, so a must be 0)
 
  • #7
Whitehole said:
d3x′≡(dx′1)i(dx′2)j(dx′3)k=RimRjsRkt(dx1)m(dx2)s(dx3)td3x′≡(dx′1)i(dx′2)j(dx′3)k=RimRjsRkt(dx1)m(dx2)s(dx3)td^3x' \equiv (dx'^1)^i (dx'^2)^j (dx'^3)^k = R^{im}R^{js}R^{kt}(dx^1)^m (dx^2)^s (dx^3)^t
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #8
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
It should be [itex]\epsilon_{123}[/itex], but by your post above what does [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex] have to do with this?
 
  • #9
Whitehole said:
It should be [itex]\epsilon_{123}[/itex], but by your post above what does [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}=0[/itex] have to do with this?
nothing, it concerns question 1.
 
  • #10
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]
Oh wait, how come [itex]\epsilon^{ijk}[/itex] appeared from the transformation

[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]

and I thought the transformation should involve indices? Why use numbers and introduce epsilon?
 
  • #11
ChrisVer said:
No indices over dx^1,2,3 and dx'^1,2,3 ...
in other words just replace the dx'h= Rhidxi you obtained but for h=1,2 and 3:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]
from linear algebra, what is:
[itex]\epsilon_{ijk}R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k}=?[/itex]

I know this is an old thread, but I'm hoping someone might help out. I'm able to get:
[itex]d^3 x' = dx'^1 dx'^2 dx'^3 = R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} dx^i dx^j dx^k[/itex]

How do we get from this to:
[itex]R^{1i}R^{2j} R^{3k} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 dx^2 dx^3[/itex]

I know this step basically completes the proof but I'm not able to get to it.
 
  • #12
Recall that, if ##\sigma## is some permutation of ##(123)##, then ##dx^{\sigma(1)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(2)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(3)} = \mathrm{sgn}(\sigma) dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3##. Writing this in terms of the antisymmetric symbol ##\epsilon##,
\begin{align*}
d^3 \tilde{x} = d\tilde{x}^1 \wedge d\tilde{x}^2 \wedge d\tilde{x}^3 &= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k dx^i \wedge dx^j \wedge dx^k \\
&= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| d^3 x
\end{align*}
 
  • Like
Likes TerryD
  • #13
ergospherical said:
Recall that, if ##\sigma## is some permutation of ##(123)##, then ##dx^{\sigma(1)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(2)} \wedge dx^{\sigma(3)} = \mathrm{sgn}(\sigma) dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3##. Writing this in terms of the antisymmetric symbol ##\epsilon##,
\begin{align*}
d^3 \tilde{x} = d\tilde{x}^1 \wedge d\tilde{x}^2 \wedge d\tilde{x}^3 &= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k dx^i \wedge dx^j \wedge dx^k \\
&= {R^1}_i {R^2}_j {R^3}_k \epsilon^{ijk} dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge dx^3 \\
&= |R| d^3 x
\end{align*}
Thanks! I'd gotten an incorrect idea about a volume element which was the source of confusion.
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical

Related to Prove the transformation is scalar

What is "prove the transformation is scalar"?

"Prove the transformation is scalar" refers to a mathematical process of determining whether a given transformation (a function that maps one set of values to another) is a scalar transformation, meaning it does not change the scale or magnitude of the original values.

Why is proving a transformation is scalar important?

Proving that a transformation is scalar is important because it allows us to understand the effect of the transformation on the original values. It also helps us to determine whether the transformation is reversible or if there is any loss of information.

How do you prove a transformation is scalar?

To prove a transformation is scalar, we need to show that when we multiply the transformation by a scalar value, the result is the same as multiplying the original value by the same scalar. This means that the scale or magnitude of the original value is unchanged after the transformation.

What are some common examples of scalar transformations?

Some common examples of scalar transformations include scaling, rotation, and translation. These transformations do not change the scale or magnitude of the original values, and therefore, are considered scalar transformations.

What are some techniques for proving a transformation is scalar?

One technique for proving a transformation is scalar is to use algebraic manipulation and substitution. Another technique is to use geometric reasoning and visualization to show that the transformation does not change the scale or magnitude of the original values.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
5
Views
6K
Back
Top