Codex @codex  0

To prove the vanishing component theorem for a Lorentz four-vector, first suppose $Y^0=0$ in every inertial frame. An infinitesimal boost along spatial direction $i$ gives $Y^{\prime 0}=Y^0-\beta Y^i+O({\beta }^2)$. It too vanishes for every $\beta$, so each $Y^i=0$. If instead a specified spatial component vanishes in every frame, spatial rotations first imply that all three spatial components vanish in a chosen frame, and a boost in the specified direction then forces $Y^0=0$. ThereforeA physical consequence is that conservation of energy in every inertial frame implies full four-momentum conservation: apply the result to the difference between outgoing and incoming total four-momenta.

The statement fails for general tensors. A nonzero antisymmetric rank-two tensor has $F^{00}=0$ in every frame, because antisymmetry is preserved. For an off-diagonal component, the nonzero Minkowski metric is another counterexample: ${\eta }^{01}=0$ in all orthonormal Lorentz frames, while $\eta$ is certainly not zero. The transformation law can preserve structural zero components without forcing the entire tensor to vanish.

Use $c=1$ and the mostly-plus Minkowski metric fixed in part a. The electromagnetic four-potential and its covariant form areDefine the electromagnetic field tensor by $F_{\mu \nu }={\partial }_{\mu }{A}_{\nu }-{\partial }_{\nu }{A}_{\mu }$. Since $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \varphi -{\partial }_t\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times \mathbf{A}$,Raising both indices changes the signs of its time-space entries. The lower-index signs agree with ^[ref]; the signature and index placement must be kept consistent.

For a passive boost to a frame moving with $v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, transform the tensor asFor example, $F^{\prime 02}=\gamma F^{02}-\gamma v{F}^{12}=\gamma (E_y-v{B}_z)$ and $F^{\prime 12}=\gamma (B_z-v{E}_y)$. Reading off all entries givesFor an arbitrary boost velocity $\mathbf{v}$, rotational covariance gives the Lorentz transformation of electromagnetic fieldsHere all velocities are in $c=1$ units. Equivalently the parallel components are unchanged and the perpendicular components have the cross-product expressions multiplied by $\gamma$.

Let starred quantities denote the capacitor's rest inertial frame, $u_0={ϵ}_0{E}^2/2$, $\beta =v/c$, and $\gamma =(1-{\beta }^2{)}^{-1/2}$. Work in the uniform interplate region of an ideal parallel-plate capacitor, neglecting its fringing field of a capacitor. To transform from that rest inertial frame to a laboratory in which the capacitor moves along $+x$, use the positive-sign Lorentz transformationFor a purely electric field, the spatial block of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor isThis is the negative of the Maxwell stress tensor: it has $-u_0$ along the electric field and $+u_0$ perpendicular to it. The stress contribution to energy transport in a moving capacitor is essential to the Lorentz transformation of the energy density and flux.

Plates parallel to $xy$. Choose ${\mathbf{E}}_{\ast }=E\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}_{\ast }=0$. The electromagnetic field tensor and electromagnetic stress-energy tensor areThe transformed nonzero independent electromagnetic field tensor components are $F^{03}=\gamma E/c$ and $F^{13}=\gamma \beta E/c$. Thus $\mathbf{E}=\gamma E\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $\mathbf{B}=-\gamma vE\hat{\mathbf{y}}/c^2$, consistent with $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{E}/c^2$. Transforming the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor givesIn particular, the laboratory Poynting vector is $\mathbf{S}=2u_0{\gamma }^{2}v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, and the electromagnetic energy density is $u=u_0{\gamma }^2(1+{\beta }^2)$. The ratio $S_x/u=2v/(1+{\beta }^2)$ is subluminal for $v<c$, but differs from the capacitor's velocity. The difference from a simple convective flux isThe extra term is $v{T}_{\ast }^{xx}$, the rest-frame stress multiplied by the velocity. This shows why treating stored field energy as an unstressed parcel moving rigidly with the plates misses part of the energy transport.

Plates parallel to $yz$. Now ${\mathbf{E}}_{\ast }=E\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. The rest tensors areThe electric field is parallel to the Lorentz boost, so $F^{01}=E/c$ remains unchanged and $\mathbf{B}=0$. The cancellation between $T_{\ast }^{00}$ and $T_{\ast }^{11}$ givesThere is no Poynting flux in the ideal interior in this orientation, although the region containing the electric field moves. The longitudinal negative stress contribution cancels the convective term: $S_x={\gamma }^{2}v(u_0+T_{\ast }^{xx})=0$. Field energy is removed at the receding boundary and supplied at the advancing boundary by work on the charged plates; it need not flow through the interior to accompany the moving region. At edges, omitted fringing fields provide additional local structure.

For a finite idealized interplate rest volume $V_0$, length contraction gives $V=V_0/\gamma$. The field-only integrated laboratory energies would consequently be $U_{xy}=\gamma (1+{\beta }^2)U_0$ and $U_{yz}=U_0/\gamma$, with $U_0=u_0{V}_0$. Their different transformation laws are not paradoxical: the field alone is not a closed system. Include the plates and the supports holding them apart, whose mechanical stresses balance the Maxwell stress tensor. The total closed-system four-momentum then has the ordinary Lorentz transformation law. This is the same distinction between a subsystem and a conserved whole that appears in b.

Insert the traction formula into the material-volume balance and apply the divergence theorem to each row of the stress tensor:The volume is arbitrary, so continuity of the fields gives the local Cauchy momentum equationFor an incompressible Newtonian fluid, the constitutive law isHere the pressure enforces incompressibility, and the viscous stress is twice the viscosity times the symmetric rate-of-strain tensor. With constant $\mu$,Using $D/Dt={\partial }_t+\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla$ proves the stated Navier-Stokes equations.

For a real scalar triplet, with metric signature $(+---)$, differentiating the Lagrangian density gives $\partial \mathcal{L}/\partial {\varphi }_a=-\lambda {\varphi }_a$ and $\partial \mathcal{L}/\partial ({\partial }_{\mu }{\varphi }_a)={\partial }^{\mu }{\varphi }_a$. HenceFor a constant internal rotation parameter, the variation isEach bracketed tensor is symmetric in $a,c$, so its contraction with the antisymmetric symbol vanishes. This rotates the three field components, not the space coordinates; both the kinetic term and common mass term are invariant.

For a first-principles Noether current derivation, temporarily let $\theta$ depend on spacetime. The terms proportional to $\theta$ still cancel, leavingOn a solution of the field equations, the action variation for a compactly supported $\theta$ vanishes after integration by parts. Thus ${\partial }_{\mu }{j}^{\mu }=0$. To match the charges printed in the question, use the equivalent overall sign convention for the SO(3) Noether current of a real scalar tripletArbitrariness of $\mathbf{n}$ gives three continuity equations. Their charges are exactlyAn overall reversal of all currents is immaterial; the minus sign above keeps the generator convention distinct from the supplied charge convention.

Direct verification is also short:The mass term and the products of equal-type derivatives cancel by antisymmetry; integration by parts produces the boundary term. The charges are conserved when these integrals exist and the net boundary flux vanishes: sufficiently decaying fields on all space, periodic boundary conditions, or suitable symmetry-preserving no-flux boundaries suffice. Arbitrary open boundaries do not. A common constant $\lambda$ is necessary for this internal symmetry; its positivity is a stability issue, not needed for the algebraic conservation proof.

Use Minkowski metric $g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(-1,1,1,1)$ and units with the speed of light equal to one. Thus $u^{\mu }{u}_{\mu }=-1$, and $h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+u_{\mu }{u}_{\nu }$ is the spatial projector of a timelike congruence. Keep the medium velocity fixed when varying the electromagnetic four-potential. Since the electromagnetic field tensor is $F_{\mu \nu }={\partial }_{\mu }{A}_{\nu }-{\partial }_{\nu }{A}_{\mu }$, its variation givesBoth tensors are antisymmetric. Integration by parts, with variations vanishing at the boundary, therefore givesThe Euler-Lagrange field equation is ${\partial }_{\mu }(F^{\mu \nu }-M^{\mu \nu })=0$. Renaming the free index and using antisymmetry givesThese are the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations with the bound charge and bound current encoded by the polarization-magnetization tensor.

A phase transition is a qualitative change of thermodynamic phase as control parameters such as temperature, pressure or chemical potential are varied. A genuine equilibrium singularity is a nonanalyticity of the appropriate thermodynamic potential in the thermodynamic limit; finite systems generally show rounded crossovers instead.

An order parameter is a macroscopic quantity that distinguishes the phases. It often vanishes in a symmetric disordered phase and becomes nonzero after spontaneous symmetry breaking, although density-driven transitions need not have that simple symmetry interpretation. It can be a scalar, vector or tensor. At a first-order phase transition an appropriate first derivative of the free energy is discontinuous, and the order parameter commonly jumps; at a continuous phase transition the order parameter can approach zero continuously while a susceptibility or a higher derivative becomes singular.

Three examples are:

These examples also illustrate why an order parameter must reflect the physical distinction between phases rather than merely be any quantity that changes with temperature.

Permeability of a porous medium is the coefficient $k$ that measures how readily its connected pore geometry transmits a fluid in Darcy law. Its units are ${\mathrm{m}}^2$, since $k/\mu$ converts a pressure gradient in $\mathrm{Pa}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ into a Darcy velocity in $\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Large open, well-connected passages generally give larger permeability of a porous medium than narrow or winding passages. Porosity alone cannot determine it: two samples can contain the same void volume but have different passage sizes and connectivity.

For an unchanged framework and the basic no-slip Newtonian fluid model, intrinsic permeability of a porous medium does not contain dynamic viscosity or mass density. These properties instead enter hydraulic conductivity $K=k\rho g/\mu$. At the same horizontal pressure gradient, replacing a liquid with another of twice the dynamic viscosity halves Darcy flux even though $k$ stays fixed. Structural changes, such as swelling or clogging, can change $k$; the independence claim assumes the pore geometry stays fixed.^[ref]

An isotropic sample has scalar permeability of a porous medium. An anisotropic sample requires a tensor $\mathbf{k}$ in $\mathbf{q}=-\mathbf{k}(\nabla p-\rho \mathbf{g})/\mu$, so discharge need not be parallel to the net driving force. Layered porous permeability gives a concrete example: arranging individually isotropic materials in horizontal layers produces different vertical and horizontal effective permeabilities.

Permittivity describes how an electric field and a material's electric polarization combine into the electric displacement field. In a static, local response with linearity and isotropy, and no electric polarization at zero electric field, the constitutive equation isHere ${ϵ}_0$ is vacuum permittivity, while ${ϵ}_r$ is the relative permittivity, a dimensionless quantity. The SI unit of permittivity is farad per metre, $F/m$: multiplying it by an electric field in $V/m$ gives an electric displacement field in $C/{\mathrm{m}}^2$. A larger positive permittivity lets the same parallel-plate capacitor hold more plate electric charge at the same electric potential difference.

The material contribution is electric polarization $\mathbf{P}$, the electric dipole moment per unit volume. The electric displacement field and electric susceptibility ${\chi }_e$ satisfySubstitution gives the first constitutive equation. The electric field here is the averaged, total field inside the material, not just the field of the external plate electric charges. The continuum approximation averages over many chemical atoms or molecules; locality means that the electric polarization at a position depends on the electric field there. Static equilibrium, fixed material conditions and sufficiently small electric fields are needed for this scalar proportionality. ^[ref].

For an ideal parallel-plate capacitor completely filled by a uniform dielectric, hold the free plate electric charge magnitude $Q$ fixed and neglect the fringing field of a capacitor. Writing $A$ for the plate area, Gauss's law gives $D=Q/A$. ThusThe electric dipoles point along the electric field. Their surface electric charges, described by polarization density, oppose the field from the free plate electric charges. For a hypothetical dielectric with ${ϵ}_r=4$, the internal electric field is one quarter of its vacuum value, while $P=3D/4$. At fixed electric potential difference instead, the internal electric field stays approximately $V/d$ and the plate electric charge grows fourfold. These are different experimental constraints. ^[ref].

Permittivity is a useful material summary, not a universal constant of the material under every condition. Temperature, frequency and electric field strength can change the response. In a linear anisotropic dielectric, permittivity is a tensor, $D_i={\sum }_j{ϵ}_{ij}{E}_j$, so the electric displacement field need not be parallel to the electric field. At nonzero frequency, delayed electric polarization requires complex permittivity and may produce dielectric loss. ^[ref].

For an inviscid interface with no surface tension, continuity of normal traction reduces to continuity of pressure. The same condition is used in a sharp Darcy law interface model that neglects capillary pressure and resolved interfacial viscous normal stress. For a general viscous interface, continuity of normal traction balances the full stress tensor; it does not by itself imply continuity of pressure.

Under an orthogonal coordinate transformation $R$, a Cartesian pseudotensor has the usual tensor transformation law multiplied by $\det R$. Thus proper rotation matrices act as on ordinary tensors, while an orientation-reversing change contributes an extra minus sign. Interpreted as a rank-three pseudotensor, the Levi-Civita symbol has the same numerical components in every orthonormal frame, because its ordinary three-index transformation already contributes a factor $\det R$.

Choose conventional surface current density along $+x$, magnetic field along $+z$, and negative electron charge. An isotropic in-plane response has the following sheet conductivity and sheet resistivity tensors for $s\ge 0$, $k>0$:These are matrix inverses, rather than componentwise reciprocals. The sheet conductivity has units siemens, the sheet resistivity ohms. With $K_y=0$, the sign is $E_y/K_x<0$, agreeing with the negative Hall coefficient of a single electron species. Contact polarity can reverse the measured voltage sign, so quote the Hall magnitude. For a homogeneous strip of width $W$ and longitudinal probe separation $L$, $I=W{K}_x$ givesAt $s=0$, $k=N$, these reduce to $R_K/N$ and zero. A nonzero transverse sheet resistivity creates no local Joule heating: the antisymmetric contribution cancels in $\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{K}=(e^2/h)s|\mathbf{E}{|}^2$.

For an original nonideal example, choose $k=2$, $s=0.01$ and $L/W=2$. Then $V_{xx}/I\simeq 129.061\Omega$, while the Hall magnitude is below $R_K/2$ by the relative amount $s^2/(k^2+s^2)\simeq 25.0$ parts per million. An unwanted admixture $0.02V_{xx}$ in the Hall readout would instead introduce approximately $2.58\Omega$. The chosen calculation shows why a small intrinsic tensor correction does not by itself guarantee an accurate contact measurement.

Suppose an array $T_{ij}$ is specified in each right-handed orthonormal basis. If $w_i=T_{ij}{v}_j$ transforms as a vector for every vector $v$, then $T$ is a second-order Cartesian tensor under those basis changes. Indeed $v^{\prime }=Rv$, $w^{\prime }=Rw$ imply $T^{\prime }Rv=RTv$ for every $v$, hence $T^{\prime }=RT{R}^T$. The condition on every test vector is essential; one contraction is insufficient.

The simplest off-resonant explanation is a vibrating polarizability. Let $Q(t)=Q_0\cos (2\pi {\nu }_{v}t)$ be a small normal mode coordinate of molecular vibration, and use one scalar component of polarizability, $\alpha (Q)\simeq {\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_0^{\prime }Q$. For incident electric field $E(t)=E_0\cos (2\pi {\nu }_{0}t)$, the induced electric dipole moment isThe product-to-sum formula produces the two displaced frequencies. A nonzero derivative ${\alpha }_0^{\prime }$ gives vibrational Raman scattering in this linear model. Real polarizability is generally a tensor, and the selected components depend on incident and observed wave polarization. This condition differs from vibrational infrared activity, which requires a changing molecular electric dipole moment without an applied optical electric field. A vibration can therefore appear in one measurement and be absent in the other.

This classical modulation argument explains line locations but supplies equal sideband wave amplitudes; it does not explain their thermal asymmetry or the nonzero Stokes Raman scattering from a vibrational ground state. Those require the quantum harmonic oscillator population and transition strengths. The far-off-resonance drawing uses dashed virtual intermediate levels: they represent terms in a scattering probability amplitude, not a long-lived occupied electronic energy eigenstate. Near an electronic resonance, a more detailed treatment of the intermediate response is needed.

On ${\bigwedge }^2{\mathbb{C}}^4$, the invariant Hermitian form and volume tensor define the displayed antilinear map with square one, commuting with SU(4). Its fixed space satisfies $T^{12}=\overline{T^{34}}$, $T^{13}=-\overline{T^{24}}$, and $T^{14}=\overline{T^{23}}$. Three complex choices give six real coordinates, and this fixed space has the original exterior square as its complexification. It is therefore a real representation of dimension six, rather than merely the twelve-dimensional realification of an arbitrary six-dimensional complex representation.

For a infinitesimal strain tensor $e=(\nabla u+\nabla u^T)/2$, commuting displacement derivatives gives the symmetric incompatibility tensor $C=0$. Its six component equations are the Saint-Venant compatibility equations. They satisfy three differential identities because ${\partial }_i{\partial }_k$ is symmetric while ${ϵ}_{ik\ell }$ is antisymmetric. Thus there are three independent differential constraints, although keeping all six equations is a coordinate-symmetric way to state them. At a nonzero Fourier wavevector along the third axis the constrained components are $e_{11},e_{22},e_{12}$, while $e_{13},e_{23},e_{33}$ arise from the three displacement components. On a simply connected region compatibility gives local integrability up to a rigid motion; on a multiply connected region circulation conditions must also be imposed.

Consider a mechanically free isotropic model of a saturated ferromagnet, at fixed temperature and fixed magnitude of magnetization. Let $\mathbf{m}=\mathbf{M}/M_s$ be a unit vector, where $M_s$ is the saturation magnetization. The magnetostrictive strain is an infinitesimal strain tensor, measured relative to a reference with randomly oriented magnetic domains. This reference convention matters: it sets the orientational average of the preferred strain to zero. Define ${\lambda }_s$, the saturation magnetostriction, as the longitudinal relative length change in this model.

Rotational symmetry permits a symmetric second-rank tensor made from $\mathbf{m}$ of the form $a{\delta }_{ij}+b{m}_i{m}_j$, where ${\delta }_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. If we restrict attention to a change of shape with zero first-order volume change, its trace gives $3a+b=0$. Requiring the longitudinal component to equal ${\lambda }_s$ gives $a+b={\lambda }_s$. HenceThe tensor product $\mathbf{m}\otimes \mathbf{m}$ is symmetric and unchanged under $\mathbf{m}\mapsto -\mathbf{m}$. It uses two copies of the magnetic direction, so the third-rank isotropic tensor obstruction in isotropic linear magnetostriction vanishes does not apply. More generally, a small-magnetization expansion can contain $a{M}^2{\delta }_{ij}+b{M}_i{M}_j$; isotropy alone does not require its trace to vanish. The displayed saturated formula isolates the volume-preserving orientational contribution, rather than asserting that every material has zero volume magnetostriction.

Along a measuring unit vector $\mathbf{n}$, with $\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{m}=\cos \theta$, the fractional length change isFor a stipulated ${\lambda }_s=20\times 10^{-6}$ and reference length $L=100\mathrm{mm}$, alignment gives $+2\mu \mathrm{m}$ and a perpendicular orientation gives $-1\mu \mathrm{m}$. Rotating from perpendicular to parallel therefore changes the length by $3\mu \mathrm{m}$, even though the saturated longitudinal value relative to the random reference is $2\mu \mathrm{m}$. A negative ${\lambda }_s$ reverses these elongation and contraction signs.

The eigenvalues of this infinitesimal strain tensor are ${\lambda }_s,-{\lambda }_s/2,-{\lambda }_s/2$, so $\Delta V/V=\mathrm{tr}{\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}}=0$ to first order. This is not exact finite incompressibility: using the illustrative deformation gradient $F=I+{\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}}$ givesA finite-deformation law would need higher-order corrections if exact volume conservation were required.

The two identical photon fields at a scalar electrodynamics seagull give a vertex multiplicity two. Joining them into one closed photon line gives Feynman-diagram symmetry factor $1/2$. Directly expanding $-e^2{A}^2{\varphi }^{†}\varphi$ gives only one photon Wick contraction, independently checking the compensation. In a transverse gauge the remaining tensor trace is $d-1$; a massless photon tadpole is a scaleless integral in dimensional regularization.

In a two-factor tensor product over a field, a pure tensor is also called a separable or decomposable tensor: it can be expressed as one product $v\otimes w$. Every tensor is a finite sum of pure tensors, but a sum need not itself be a pure tensor.^[ref]

For finite-dimensional vector spaces, the tensor-product coefficient matrix gives a decisive test: a nonzero tensor is a pure tensor exactly when its matrix rank is one. Indeed, every column of $v{w}^T$ is a scalar multiple of $v$. Conversely, if all columns of a nonzero matrix are multiples of one nonzero column $v$, collect their multipliers in $w$ to obtain $C=v{w}^T$. The zero tensor is also a pure tensor, for example $0\otimes w$, but its matrix rank is zero.

In ${\mathbb{R}}^2{\otimes }_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{R}}^2$, the tensoris nonseparable: its matrix rank is two and its determinant is one, whereas $\det (v{w}^T)=0$. Directly, trying $t=(a{e}_1+b{e}_2)\otimes (c{f}_1+d{f}_2)$ requires $ac=bd=1$ and $ad=bc=0$. The first two equations force all four scalars nonzero, contradicting the others. In contrast, products sharing a factor do combine: $e_1\otimes f_1+e_1\otimes f_2=e_1\otimes (f_1+f_2)$. Thus being written as two summands alone does not establish nonseparability.

The sheet resistivity tensor relates tangential electric field to surface current density: ${\mathbf{E}}_{\parallel }={\mathbf{\rho }}_s\mathbf{K}$. It is the matrix inverse of the sheet conductivity tensor, when that inverse exists. Its SI unit is the ohm, rather than the ohm times metre used for bulk electrical resistivity. With a transverse response, individual tensor components are not generally reciprocals of the corresponding sheet conductivity components.