Jump to content

Talk:Spin tensor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2603:6000:aa4d:c5b8:222:69ff:fe4c:408b (talk) at 22:08, 30 November 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconPhysics Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rank 2 or 3?

In section "Noether currents", you indicate the angular momentum tensor once as tensor of rank 3, or , and once as tensor of rank 2, or . So, what is the rank now? --195.138.38.10 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The moment/angular momentum tensor , given as the integral itself, is a rank 2 tensor, and provides the Noether charges associated respectively with boosts (for ) and spatial rotations (for ). The integrand , which is the spin tensor itself - is technically a rank 3 tensor density (rather than a tensor) that provides the 3-current for . The tensor associated with this is rank 3.
It's customary to use German script for densities, so that the integrand would actually be denoted , while the corresponding tensor would be . The components of both coincide only for Cartesian (and Minkowski) coordinates, otherwise they differ by the factor which appears in the integral measure; e.g. the measure in Cartesian coordinates becomes in spherical coordinates, so that = , when expressed in spherical coordinates. The confusion between tensors and densities is prevalent throughout the Physics literature and is a contributing factor to other mistakes further down the line (e.g. the frequent citing in the literature of the wrong power of c for the coupling coefficient in the Einstein field equation).