Talk:Four-gradient

Latest comment: 7 years ago by 208.104.84.162 in topic Notational Differences

Importance

edit

Importance to math students: One of the first steps on graduate level. Importance in General: Between important fill & specialized knowledge (mid/lowmid) Two References have been added. The corresponding german wikipage has a non-english link. Maybe a link to Wolfram would be better

                                Phi0618 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Generalization of what?

edit

The first sentence gets it backwards: it is gradient which is the more general concept. We take gradient, retrict it to four dimensions and space-time metric and only then get the usual four-gradient used in physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.47.235 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It means the four-gradient is a space-time analogue of the Gibbs-Heaviside gradient (as the gradient-link makes clear). Though both these may logically (for mathematicians) derive from 1-forms in some abstract space, it would probably be safe to assume that historically the Gibbs-Heaviside gradient came first. --catslash (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Box symbol

edit

As there seems to be some doubt about this, here are four works plucked from Google books which use   and   for the 4-gradient and d'Alembertian respectively.

  • Clifford algebras in analysis and related topics By John Ryan
  • Differential forms in electromagnetics By Ismo V. Lindell
  • Introduction to relativistic quantum chemistry, Volume 2006 By Kenneth G. Dyall, Knut Faegri
  • The theories of chemistry By Jan C. A. Boeyens

Admittedly these authors do seem to be in a minority. --catslash (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This also goes against the notation I've seen elsewhere in Wikipedia (e.g. D'Alembert operator, Klein-Gordon equation). It seems to me we should add a parenthetical to clarify this. What do you think? Gneisss (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply


Notational Differences

edit

There seems to be a bit more notational difference in the use of 4-vectors than in a lot of other physics. I will simply add the same note here that is in the article... It applies to the use of the box symbol as well.

Regarding the use of scalars, 4-vectors and tensors in physics, various authors use slightly different notations for the same equations. For instance, some use   for invariant rest mass, others use   for invariant rest mass and use   for relativistic mass. Many authors set factors of   and   and   to dimensionless unity. Others show some or all the constants. Some authors use   for velocity, others use  . Some use   as a 4-wavevector (to pick an arbitrary example). Others use   or   or   or   or   or  , etc. Some write the 4-wavevector as  , some as   or   or   or   or  or  . Some will make sure that the dimensional units match across the 4-vector, others don't. Some refer to the temporal component in the 4-vector name, others refer to the spatial component in the 4-vector name. Some mix it throughout the book, sometimes using one then later on the other. Some use the metric (+---), others use the metric (-+++). Some don't use 4-vectors, but do everything as the old style E and 3-vector p. The thing is, all of these are just notational styles, with some more clear and concise than the others. The physics is the same as long as one uses a consistent style throughout the whole derivation.208.104.19.227 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

A good working convention for 4-vector notation based on:
Rindler, Wolfgang Introduction to Special Relativity (2nd edn.) (1991) Clarendon Press Oxford ISBN 0-19-853952-5
4-vector:
  *Rindler allows  , pg.56*
Greek index {0..3}, Latin index {1..3}
[UPPERCASE] for 4-vectors and tensors:   or  , exception Minkowski metric  
[lowercase] for scalars, 3-vectors, and individual components:  , exception energy  
Individual components will tend to have tensor indices or dimensional basis labels:   or  
[non-bold] for tensor index notation and individual components:  
[bold] for vectors of either sort or tensor component groups: 4-vector  , 3-vector  , tensor component group: the EM fields   and  , which act like 3-vectors in classical EM
 
3-electric field  , 3-magnetic field   *Note these are not the spatial components of 4-vectors however*
4-EM vector potential   *Rindler had used 4-potential  , pg.107*
4-gradient   *Rindler had used   comma gradient notation, pg.104*
These are all easy to implement in HTML or Wikipedia and show up well in the various browsers, and you are not limited to a certain font which may or may not work on some browsers. Also, the meaning of each type of object is very clear, whether you mean a tensor, a 4-vector, a 3-vector, a scalar, an individual component, etc.


And to these I usually add the following:
  is a 4-vector style, which is typically more compact and can use dot notation, always using bold uppercase to represent the 4-vector.
  is a tensor index style, which is sometimes required in more complicated expressions, especially those involving tensors with more than one index, such as  .
'c' factor in the temporal component, which allows the entire 4-vector (and its individual components) to have consistent dimensional units and for the spacetime 4-vector name to match the spatial 3-vector name, which is helpful for Newtonian limiting cases:
4-velocity   {SI units [m/s]}
4-momentum   {SI units [kg m/s]}
4-acceleration   {SI units [m/s^2]}
4-wavevector   {SI units [rad/m]} a temporal angular frequency/c and spatial 3-wavevector


4-acceleration   {fully relativistic}
4-acceleration   {in the Newtonian limiting case v<<c}
Also, always denote the rest case senario with a naught, so there is no chance of misinterpretation.
 
  = relativistic energy
  = rest energy
This way it is also easier to spot the Lorentz scalar invariants:
 
 
 
 , the QM Schrödinger relations   and  


John Wilson (Scirealm) 10 April 2016
http://www.scirealm.org/4Vectors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.19.227 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are several references in the article to the use of the "gradient" in QM. IMO, this (a) is completely out of place in an article that is intrinsically about a classical operator, and (b) is making a leap based on the similarity of notation, but in QM it is not appropriate to call it a gradient operator, as it operates on a (wave)function that is not a scalar function of the point in spacetime. Aside from the WP:OR aspects. I'm not likely to engage much here (if I did, I would delete it all, considering my opinion), but I thought I'd bring some attention to this. —Quondum 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

A quick skim of "Modern Elementary Particle Physics: The Fundamental Particles and Forces", by Gordon Kane[1], a textbook about relativistic quantum mechanics, makes extensive use of the 4-gradient   in chapters 2 - 8. Those chapters are: (2) Relativistic Notation, Lagrangians, Currents, and Interactions. (3) Gauge Invariance. (4) Non-Abelian Gauge Theories. (5) Dirac Notation for Spin. (6) The Standard Model Lagrangian. (7) The Electroweak Theory and Quantum Chromodynamics. (8) Masses and the Higgs Mechanism. The 4-gradient is not just a classical SR 4-vector. It has great utility in modern quantum theory. Please do your research before you talk about deleting stuff. Otherwise, I have great respect for your wiki edits.
Also, from Quantum Field Theory, pg. 39, by John W. Norbury: "A quick route to the KGE is with the relativistic formula   giving   and   and   giving  . The KGE can be written in terms of 4-vectors,   and is therefore manifestly covariant..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.84.162 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Kane, Gordon (1994). Modern Elementary Particle Physics: The Fundamental Particles and Forces (Updated ed.). Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. ISBN 0-201-62460-5.

Covariant derivative?

edit

Something is amiss. I found a website claiming that although   is allowed,   isn't and in principle, one is actually using a covariant derivative in Minkowski space. Some precision or clarification on that issue would be helpful.TonyMath (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is the website? Or the info from the website? There are quite a few 4-Gradient Usage examples that give valid physics using either a lower or upper index on the 4-gradient. Everything I have ever read shows that index raising/lowering is valid on physical 4-vectors using the Minkowski flat spacetime metric   in SR, and using the more general   in GR. My understanding is that covariant derivative is only necessary in curved spacetime GR.

208.104.19.227 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply