1
$\begingroup$

In my Professor's notes on Special Relativity, the determinant of a rank-two tensor $[T]$ (a $4\times 4$ matrix, basically) is given using the Levi Civita Symbol as: $$T=-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}T^{\mu0}T^{\nu1}T^{\rho2}T^{\lambda3}.$$ But, while trying to derive this, I seem to be missing the minus sign. My attempt went as follows: I have a matrix of the form :

\begin{bmatrix} T^{00} & T^{01} & T^{02} & T^{03} \\ T^{10} & T^{11} & T^{12} & T^{13} \\ T^{20} & T^{21} & T^{22} & T^{23} \\ T^{30} & T^{31} & T^{32} & T^{33} \end{bmatrix}

As usual, by definition of the determinant of this matrix, I can use the four-dimensional Levi-Civita Symbol (with $\epsilon_{0123}=1$) to write it as: $$T=T^{00}\epsilon_{0\nu\rho\lambda}T^{\nu1}T^{\rho2}T^{\lambda3}-T^{10}\epsilon_{\nu1\rho\lambda}T^{\nu1}T^{\rho2}T^{\lambda3}+T^{20}\epsilon_{\nu\rho2\lambda}T^{\nu1}T^{\rho2}T^{\lambda3}-T^{30}\epsilon_{\nu\rho\lambda3}T^{\nu1}T^{\rho2}T^{\lambda3}.$$ In the first term the greek indices take spatial values{1,2,3}, while in the second term they take {0,2,3} and so on, and repeated indices imply summation. Now, using the even-odd permutation property of the Levi-Civita symbol, I have that $\epsilon_{\nu1\rho\lambda}=-\epsilon_{1\nu\rho\lambda}$ and $\epsilon_{\nu\rho\lambda3}=-\epsilon_{3\nu\rho\lambda}$. Plugging these into the former equation and using the summation convention by introducing the dummy index $\mu$, I find that:

$$T=\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}T^{\mu0}T^{\nu1}T^{\rho2}T^{\lambda3}. $$

Could someone please point out what went wrong in the derivation?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Is $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ contravariant Levi-Chevita tensor or Cotravariant Levi-Chevita density tensor? $\endgroup$
    – Sancol.
    Commented Mar 31 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ It is a tensor, not a tensor density, as we are dealing with special relativity here. $\endgroup$
    – V Govind
    Commented Mar 31 at 13:10

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Levi-cevita symbol which is defined as $$ \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}= \begin{cases} +1&\text{if}\,{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \rm \, is\,an\,even\,permutation\,of\,0123 \\ -1&\text{if}\, {\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\rm \,is\,an\,odd\,permutation\,of\,0123\\ 0&\text{otherwise} \end{cases} $$ is a density tensor with weight $w=-1$; Based on definition of determinant we can write determinant of a matrix as $$\text{Det}(T) = \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} T^{\mu}_{0} T^{\nu}_{1} T^{\rho}_{2} T^{\sigma}_{3} $$ or $$\text{Det}(T) = \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} T_{\mu}^{ 0} T_{\nu}^{ 1} T_{\rho}^{ 2} T_{\sigma}^{ 3} $$ Also we can construct an absolute tensor for each density tensor, that for Levi-Civita density tensor is as $$\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=\sqrt{\left|g\right|}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$$
$$\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=\frac{\text{sgn}(g)}{\sqrt{\left|g\right|}}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$$
Then for Minkophski spacetime we have: $$\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}= \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$$ $$\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}= - \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$$ Now if we try to write determinant of $T$ as Contraction of two tensor we have

$$\text{Det}(T) = \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} T_{\mu}^{ 0} T_{\nu}^{ 1} T_{\rho}^{ 2} T_{\sigma}^{ 3} = -\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} T_{\mu}^{ 0} T_{\nu}^{ 1} T_{\rho}^{ 2} T_{\sigma}^{ 3} = -\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} T^{\mu 0} T^{\nu 1} T^{\rho 2} T^{\sigma 3 }$$ Therefore your professor was right.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for the reply. I have some doubts: first, when we speak of the definition of the determinant of a rank two tensor, is it conventionally formulated in terms of the mixed tensor, rather than the fully contravariant form I have used? Second, did you mean 2 and 3 instead of 3 and 4? Also, could you please point out what is wrong in my attempt, and add more clarity to the last step you have used? $\endgroup$
    – V Govind
    Commented Mar 31 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ I think determinant is defined for matrices, but we can let himself formulate matrix as mixed tensor of rank (1, 1) $\endgroup$
    – Sancol.
    Commented Mar 31 at 17:00
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I mean 2 and 3 instead of 3 and 4 $\endgroup$
    – Sancol.
    Commented Mar 31 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ I corrected them $\endgroup$
    – Sancol.
    Commented Mar 31 at 17:16
  • $\begingroup$ But I still can't see what is wrong with my approach. Does it mean it is not possible to formulate the determinant for a fully contravariant tensor, as I have attempted? $\endgroup$
    – V Govind
    Commented Mar 31 at 17:35
0
$\begingroup$

Not all rank 2 tensors are the same. In particular, this would make sense if $\mathbf T$ is meant to be a $(1,1)$-tensor with components $T^\mu_{\ \ \ \nu}$. If that's the case, then there would be an extra minus sign which comes from raising the second index prior to contracting with the Levi-Civita symbol.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ So is my derivation correct for the case of a contravariant tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$? $\endgroup$
    – V Govind
    Commented Mar 31 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ Beware that $\epsilon^{0123}= - \epsilon_{0123}$. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Commented Mar 31 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ @mike stone yeah, could you please explain why that is relevant in the derivation I have given above? $\endgroup$
    – V Govind
    Commented Mar 31 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ Because the relation between the epsilon tensor and the determinant depends on whether you define $\epsilon^{0123}=1$ or $\epsilon_{0123}=1$. There is, as far as I am aware, no universal agreement on this. You have to see which convention your lecturer is using. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Commented Mar 31 at 15:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.