Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!news.dfncis.de!not-for-mail From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) Newsgroups: sci.physics.research Subject: Re: Matrix Multiplication in SR Date: 1 Aug 2024 07:01:38 GMT Organization: Stefan Ram Lines: 43 Approved: hees@itp.uni-frankfurt.de (sci.physics.research) Message-ID: References: X-Trace: news.dfncis.de TqCXLq/VC/p302vmUjQaJgvqyuJy28bG4B1HWDCLlot1PWT6IQgqplH3hiOsa2inJ6 Cancel-Lock: sha1:chZT7LXDxrm8UnVy/xSfDoNWpo4= sha256:+04MLUuU1qHDJThorWO3c/4ZB0bdI1bQAULmDgPffJ8= Bytes: 2313 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted: >[[Mod. note -- I think that last subscript "mu" should be a "nu". >That is, equations (0) and (1) should read (switching to LaTeX notation) >$X := p_\mu p^\mu > = p_\mu \eta^{\mu\nu} p_\nu$ >-- jt]] Thanks for that observation! In the meantime, I found the answer to my question reading a text by Viktor T. Toth. Many Textbooks say, ( -1 0 0 0 ) eta_{mu nu} = ( 0 1 0 0 ) ( 0 0 1 0 ) ( 0 0 0 1 ), but when you multiply this by a column (contravariant) vector, you get another column (contravariant) vector instead of a row, while the "v_mu" in eta_{mu nu} v^nu = v_mu seems to indicate that you will get a row (covariant) vector! As Viktor T. Toth observed in 2005, a square matrix (i.e., a row of columns) only really makes sense for eta^mu_nu (which is just the identity matrix). He then clear-sightedly explains that a matrix with /two/ covariant indices needs to be written not as a /row of columns/ but as a /row of rows/: eta_{mu nu} = [( -1 0 0 0 )( 0 1 0 0 )( 0 0 1 0 )( 0 0 0 1 )] . Now, if one multiplies /this/ with a column (contravariant) vector, one gets a row (covariant) vector (tweaking the rules for matrix multiplication a bit by using scalar multiplication for the product of the row ( -1 0 0 0 ) with the first row of the column vector [which first row is a single value] and so on)! Exercise Work out the representation of eta^{mu nu} in the same spirit.