3

It might sound like a stubid question, but I really have some problems in unterstanding it.

When defining tensor fields on a given manifold $\mathcal{M}$, one find the following transformation rule:

$${\displaystyle {\hat {T}}_{j'_{1}\dots j'_{q}}^{i'_{1}\dots i'_{p}}\left({\bar {x}}^{1},\ldots ,{\bar {x}}^{n}\right)={\frac {\partial {\bar {x}}^{i'_{1}}}{\partial x^{i_{1}}}}\cdots {\frac {\partial {\bar {x}}^{i'_{p}}}{\partial x^{i_{p}}}}{\frac {\partial x^{j_{1}}}{\partial {\bar {x}}^{j'_{1}}}}\cdots {\frac {\partial x^{j_{q}}}{\partial {\bar {x}}^{j'_{q}}}}T_{j_{1}\dots j_{q}}^{i_{1}\dots i_{p}}\left(x^{1},\ldots ,x^{n}\right).}$$

where $(x^{1},\dots,x^{n})$ and $(\bar{x}^{1},\dots,\bar{x}^{n})$ denotes local charts of the manifold. In physics this is often directly used as the definition of tensors.

Now to my question: A Lorentz tensor is defined to be a object with some indices, which transforms like a tensor under Lorentz transformations: So e.g.

$$F^{\mu^{\prime}\nu^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})={\Lambda^{\mu^{\prime}}}_{\mu}{\Lambda^{\nu^{\prime}}}_{\nu}F^{\mu\nu}(x)$$

where $\Lambda$ satisfies $\Lambda^{T}\eta\Lambda=\eta$ with $\eta=\operatorname{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ and where the underlying manifold is the Minkowski-space.

According to the definition of tensors, $F^{\mu\nu}$ has to have this transformation law for every coordinate transformation, while in the definition of Lorentz tensors, $F^{\mu\nu}$ has to have this transformation law only for these special group of $\Lambda$'s....

Eric Wofsey
  • 342,377
  • Where $\Lambda_\mu^{\mu^\prime}=\frac{\partial\bar{x}^{\mu^\prime}}{\partial x^\mu}$. – J.G. Jul 08 '20 at 21:30
  • Yes exactly. But the coordinate charts a chosen in such a way that $\Lambda$ has this property. –  Jul 08 '20 at 21:34
  • Related: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4713853/is-every-euclidean-tensor-an-affine-tensor – ASlateff Oct 19 '23 at 11:34

1 Answers1

4

This is a great question. It strikes at the heart of what manifold we are actually considering. For physics, the actual manifold is rarely made clear and we often just see statements about allowed coordinate changes. Something rather special happens in the Lorentz transformation case: $$ x^{\mu'} = \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu}x^{\mu} $$ so as $\Lambda$ is a constant matrix which solves $\Lambda^T \eta \Lambda = \eta$ when we differentiate there is no coordinate-dependence for $\Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu}$ and $$ \frac{\partial x^{\mu'}}{\partial x^{\nu}} = \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu} \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}} = \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu} \delta^{\mu}_{\nu} = \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\nu} $$ If the coordinate change resembled the given rule for Lorentz transformations $\Lambda$ was allowed a coordinate dependence (I'll replace $\Lambda$ with $A$ for clarity of comparison) then: $$ \frac{\partial x^{\mu'}}{\partial x^{\nu}} = \frac{ \partial A^{\mu'}_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}x^{\nu} + A^{\mu'}_{\nu} $$ so there is no nice relation between the rule for coordinate change and the corresponding rule for transformation of partial derivatives. Suppose that $F$ is a Lorentz tensor, I'll stick with rank one since it suffices, we're given pointwise that: $$ F^{\mu'} = A^{\mu'}_{\mu}F^{\mu}. $$ I'll be $$ F^{\mu'} = \left( \frac{\partial x^{\mu'}}{\partial x^{\mu}} - \frac{ \partial A^{\mu'}_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}x^{\nu} \right)F^{\mu}. $$ There is no nice way to remove the derivative term to get the general tensor law you want. This is not a proof, and I think to answer your question better I'd need to blather on about domains of coordinate charts and the general idea that a given point set can be given inequivalent differentiable structures. The concept of a manifold can be specialized to just take the coordinate changes whose derivatives make for nice coordinate changes. Probably the better way to think about this is with the frame bundle and the concept of associated subbundles which limit the allowed transformations in the ways we are interested. There is also the larger question of Riemannian vs. semi-Riemannian. That is something else you'd need to be aware of to properly understand the question you begin to ask. Still, it's is a great question. It's the first question I asked my advisor: "what is a tensor". His response: "what kind". That's it, there are many kinds of tensors depending on what structure you wish to preserve. I'll leave it at that for now. Supper is ready.

James S. Cook
  • 17,257
  • In your first equation the $x'$ and $x$'s are special coordinates in Minkowski space as they are related by a Lorentz transformation, which is not the most general coordinate transformation possible, as you condition below points out. Having said that, there is one thing I don't understand yet from your answer: although (almost) only Lorentz transformations are relevant from a physical point of view, a tensor of Minkowski space $M$ must "transform like a tensor" (let me use this phrase for brevity) for all coordinate transformation. In that sense a tensor on $M$ is a Lorentz tensor – Feynmate Dec 17 '22 at 09:12
  • but the converse is not generally true. Is that correct? If it is, then on what manifold are Lorentz tensors actual tensors (as mathematicians define them), provided that is even possible? – Feynmate Dec 17 '22 at 09:13
  • 1
    @Feynman_00 if I understand you correctly, then I would say the tensors which are Lorentz tensors on Minkowski space may not transform as tensors with respect to general coordinate transformations on Minkowski space. We ignore all possible coordinate transformations which are outside the bounds of the formalism. This is true in Newtonian mechanics, we only expect Newton's Laws to hold in inertial frames. Likewise, the Lorentz tensor is only expected to transform according to Lorentz transformations. I would expect there are many other transformations for which the laws of physics do not... – James S. Cook Dec 19 '22 at 17:24
  • 1
    @Feynman_00 nicely transform. General Relativity is much less rigid, there we only expect space is locally Lorentzian, and a global coordinate chart for space time need not exist. Still, the expectation that space is locally Lorentzian does place restrictions on the class of possible manifolds which can serve as spacetime. Moreover, for an appropriate spacetime, there are special coordinate systems which can be set-up at any given point which make space resemble Minkowski space locally... – James S. Cook Dec 19 '22 at 17:32
  • Thank you! That was precisely what I was looking for. I also asked a related question about it recently. – Feynmate Dec 19 '22 at 17:44