Talk:Pseudotensor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This entry needs some good examples.

Done --Michael C Price 11:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't pseudotensors more general than tensor densities? Phys 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes! The terminology is muddled in the literature, but pseudotensor is often used in gtr to mean a tensorial like object which is not generally covariant, but which only makes sense in certain coordinate systems, such as pseudo-cartesian systems. ---CH 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The terminology is more than muddled, it's complete rubbish. The article is talking about tensor densities not pseudotensors. I've changed it to reflect the distinction -- at some stage the two concepts should be given their own pages. --Michael C Price 11:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Please do it. (I could, but too busy trying to control bad edits in other physics/math topics.)---CH 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Already done. It was a learning experience :-(, but worth it.--Michael C Price 02:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Math or physics?

Math. BTW, Michael, WP discussion of this kind of confusion has been previously noted but none of the experts has taken the time to clear it up, so feel free to have a go. I think it is important to take advantage of existing math articles and to distinguish between math (tensor algebra/calculus) and applications to physics.---CH 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I spent some time looking over the maths and physics categories and the only firm conclusion I came to was that I wasn't going to be happy with which ever one I chose! Still, I think it better to produce half-finished and inappropriate stubs than none at all....--Michael C Price 02:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign flip

I believe that the term pseudotensor means different things in different contexts: in particle physics they may well gain a sign flip under an inversion but I don't believe this is true in general relativity. The article is currently inconsistent on this issue: I don't think the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor, for example, flips signs under an inversion. --Michael C. Price talk 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudotensors flip sign also in general relativity. This is true for the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor, as well as for the Levi-Civita symbol. The issue is much more complex though. Pseudotensors are generalisation of axial vectors, just as ordinary tensors are generalisation of polar vectors. I am doing an extensive rewrite of the pseudotensor article, in which I will explain this issue through matrix algebra and show how the determinant of a pseudotensor can become -1 or +1 depending on the rotation (improper or proper). I also plan to rewrite the article on Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor, and the empty entry Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensors (note the plural). However, I must first add some physics meaning in the article Covariant derivative because in the moment it is too math oriented and lacks some definitions which are helpful for explaining the energy conservation in general relativity. --Lantonov 08:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the LL pseudotensor flips sign under a spatial inversion. IOW readers badly need your explanation. --Michael C. Price talk 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the explanation. As an example, this will include a simple pseudotensor, to show its general properties in a manner that is easy to grasp. As for the LL pseudotensor, I don't know whether any modern computer is up to the task of calculating its determinant (in 4D). Only after the determinant is calculated, it can be shown that it flips sign under improper rotation. My slowness is due to the fact that it is not easy for me to find what is explained already in wiki and where. I am afraid that I will duplicate material found in other articles and it is not easy for me to decide what to include in the explanation. --Lantonov 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing here -- as you say, direct calculation would be very difficult -- but isn't there a good chance that the determinant sign flip will cancel since det appears both above and below? I realise that it may not be this simple, since one appears inside the bracket and is twice differentiated, whilst the other is outside. --Michael C. Price talk 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are talking about 2 different determinants here. Maybe you have in mind g, the determinant of the of the metric tensor gαβ. g is fairly easy to calculate depending on the complexity of the metric of the space it is calculated in. However, g never flips sign because it is a det of true tensor. In LL g is defined to be always negative because all spaces can be made through transformations locally Galilean and Galilean frame in LL gives g = -2. J. Synge in his book makes another definition of the Minkowski space which differs in sign from LL, so Synge's g is always positive. The det of LL pseudotensor is something infinitely more complicated. We will have a 16 x 16 matrix, in which each of the 256 components is expressed by the formula (96,8) or (96,9) in the LL book. If we take into account the summation for the dummy indexes, the expression for each component may well expand to 2 pages. Think about calculating the determinant for such a monster where we have to multiply all the components. I feel dizzy just by the thought of it. As for cancelling the sign of g, yes, it does cancel because we can always take (-1) out of the differentiation operator. LL operates with (-g) instead of g because they have defined g to be negative. The same expression in Synge is with g in the place of (-g). --Lantonov 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, we're talking about two different determinants. My error. --Michael C. Price talk 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When I slept on it, I figured that if I find a very simple metric for which g^{\alpha\beta},_{\mu} \neq 0 and make the calcs in 3D with a computer I might be able to prove the sign flip of LLP under improper rotation. --Lantonov 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the LL pseudotensor vanishes locally in any frame where the first derivatives of the metric vanish (which by the equivalence principle is always possible anywhere), doesn't it also follow that the sign flip can't encapsulate the definition of a pseudotensor? Adding a sign flip to a pseudotensor's transformation would not allow it to vaninh anywhere in anyframe.--Michael C. Price talk 06:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right on this. However, the definition of pseudotensor is rigid and made in mathematics, not in physics, on the basis of coordinate transformations, contractions and relationships with pseudovectors (axial vectors) and pseudoscalars. Pseudotensors are also pivotal for the concept of dual tensors, vector products, and such. The more I read, the more I come to the conclusion that pseudotensor is a misnomer when applied to the grav SEM quantities like LL pseudo. All that Lan-Lif say on this is (ch. 96, after #96,8): "An important property of the quantities tik is that they do not form a tensor; it can be seen by the fact that \partial{h^{ikl}}/\partial{x^l} are composed of ordinary but not of covariant derivatives. However, tik are expressed by the quantities \Gamma^{i}_{kl} and those behave like tensors in respect to linear coordinate transformations (see ch. 85); it follows that the same is true in respect to tik." Now, the transformation rule for \Gamma^{i}_{kl} is (LL,#85,15) and differs from the tensor rule by the presence of a monom with a second derivative (which disappears in linear transformations). Therefore, \Gamma^{i}_{kl} is not a tensor but it is not a pseudotensor either because this transformation rule is different from that for a pseudotensor. There is no reason to expect that tik will transform somehow differently than the Christoffel symbols. I think that the term pseudotensor is given here only to designate the fact that LLP is not a true tensor. In the newer literature, the SEM quantities for gravitation are called quasitensors; eg. Landau-Lifshitz quasitensor. I recently read an article with exactly this term, and the other SEM pseudos were also called quasitensors. I'll post a reference to this article when I find it in my messy folders. I still haven't read anything rigorous about quasitensors (definitions, properties etc) so I don't know if this is not another misnomer. However, I am almost certain that LLP is a very loose application of the term pseudotensor. --Lantonov 07:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right about the change in usage of the term "pseudotensor" from the days of Landau et al. I suspect that the new usage is more prevalent in QFT/particle physics than GR. I have never heard of quasitensors, but the distinction you make is logical.--Michael C. Price talk 09:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quasitensors

I read something further on quasitensors. They seem to be related to dual quasialgebras and quasi Hopf-algebras, and yes, some SEM (quasi?)tensors, eg Bergmann-Thompson quasitensor is mentioned in this respect. Need some more time to dip in this. --Lantonov 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly they avoid the 'p' word in recent papers, preferring to speak about 'energy-momentum complexes' or 'energy-momentum formulations' of LL, BT, Møller, Papapetrou or whoever. --Lantonov 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A Google web search gets the following hit counts:

  • "Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor" = 455
  • "Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor" = 40
  • "Landau-Lifshitz quasi-tensor" = 3
  • "Landau-Lifshitz quasitensor" = 0

--Michael C. Price talk 11:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covariant vs Invariant

I changed the term covariant to invariant. Invariant is a more general term which refers to both covariant and contravariant tranformations. Although often covariant is used as a synonym of invariant this use is informal (see Covariance and contravariance of vectors#Informal usage:invariance). Lantonov 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)