I am doing some manipulations with tensors in curved background. There are, however, coordinates, where Lorentz symmetry is manifest. So, on one hand, I am dealing with particular coordinates and, on the other hand, I don't want to deal with tensors component by component, because there is Lorentz symmetry around that simplifies things.

For example, we have a vector field of the form $$A_\mu = a_{\mu}F(x^\nu x_\nu,x^\lambda b_\lambda)$$ where $a_\mu$ and $b_\lambda$ are constant covectors and $x^\nu$ is a coordinate and $F$ - some unknown function of scalar arguments. I would like to be able to evaluate efficiently expressions like $D_\mu A_\nu$ where the Christoffel symbols are also expressed in terms of $x^\mu$ and some constant parameters/Lorentz vectors (it would be nice to implement evaluation of the Christoffel symbols automatically, but anyway I already computed them). In computations, I would like Mathematica to do things like $$\partial_\mu F(x^2,bx)=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x^2}2x_\mu + \frac{\partial F}{\partial bx}b_\mu, \qquad \partial_\mu x^\nu =\delta^\nu_{\mu}$$ and so on and then to be able to contract indices. What is the best way to achieve that? I assume, I can use xCoba and introduce (co)vector fields for $a$, $x$ and $b$. But then Mathematica will not take into account, for example, that $\partial_\mu a_\nu =0$ unless I assign to $a_\mu$'s components some constant values $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ and $a_4$. On the other hand, if I do assign some concrete values to the components, I am afraid, I will get $a^\mu b_\mu$ in the form $a^1b_1+a^2b_2+a^3b_3+a^4b_4$, which is a mess. Or, may be it is better to deal with Mathematica's built in tensor manipulations?

I looked through suggested similar questions and it seems that Cartesian tensor gradient will do the job with differentiation. Essentially, to the best of my understanding, I am supposed to teach Mathematica how derivatives act on each expression that one encounters. But then I will also need to contract indices, e.g. $$x^\mu\eta_{\mu\nu}\to x_\nu, \qquad x^\mu x^\mu \eta_{\mu\nu} \to x^2.$$ Should I also then teach Mathematica all contraction rules? How does it work in practice?

  • $\begingroup$ There’s a Mathematica package called xAct that will help you with this. Try it out and let me know if it works for you. $\endgroup$
    – HirenPatel
    Oct 14 '18 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ I am studying it right now. xCoba that I mentioned above is a part of xAct that allows to work in particular coordinates. But so far it seems that xAct allows to work either in a completely coordinate-independent manner, which would not let me substituting concrete expressions for tensor fields (because this breaks diffeos) or one can substitute expressions in particular coordinates using xCoba, but then I am lead to deal with components, which does not take into account simplifications arising from residual Lorentz symmetry. But I keep reading, may be I will find the right tool :) $\endgroup$
    – Dr.Yoma
    Oct 14 '18 at 21:49

For a situation like this, the best way to proceed in xAct is to use xTensor only:

$PrePrint = ScreenDollarIndices;

I use here Latin indices, but you can easily change all of this to use Greek indices:

DefManifold[M, 4, {a, b, c, d}]

DefMetric[-1, g[-a, -b], CD]

DefTensor[A[c], M]
DefTensor[B[c], M]
DefTensor[x[c], M]


Declare the differentiation properties of those objects:

x /: PD[a_][x[b_]] := delta[a, b]
A /: PD[a_][A[b_]] := 0
B /: PD[a_][B[b_]] := 0

Construct the scalars you need:

x2 = x[-a] x[a];
Bx = B[-a] x[a];

Now you can perform the operation you wanted, with the result you wanted:

PD[-a][F[x2, Bx]] // ContractMetric

This is how the result looks in output:

enter image description here

  • $\begingroup$ It works! Thanks a lot! $\endgroup$
    – Dr.Yoma
    Oct 15 '18 at 16:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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