Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the context of general relativity it is often stated that one of the main purposes of tensors is that of making equations frame-independent.

Question: why is this true?

I'm looking for a mathematical argument/proof about this fact.

share|improve this question
1  
I would probably just refer you to the first chapter of Carlo Rovelli's book. Or any book on general relativity that starts with a tetrad formalism. –  Jerry Schirmer May 24 '13 at 3:41
5  
A flavour of why this is true: a vector, say a normal one in 3d, is really a physical object $\mathbf{v}.$ You can of course project unto a certain basis $\{\mathbf{e}_i\}_i$, so $\mathbf{v} = \sum v_i \mathbf{e}_i$, and then the components $v_i$ are frame-dependent numbers, but as long as you don't choose a particular basis you're safe. You can then manipulate vectors and tensors (take sums, multiply with scalars, contract them etc.) in a way that doesn't depend on any basis chosen. –  Vibert May 24 '13 at 6:42
2  
The answer of @Vibert is perfectly correct. In fact, the real equations are between physical objects, because intrinsic physical reality, and intrinsic relations between physical objects, do not depend on observers (frames). But, practically, you need to express them into a particular frame, so you need to use components of vectors, or components of tensors. –  Trimok May 24 '13 at 8:43
    
If a tensor is zero in one frame it is zero in any frame or if a tensor equation holds in one frame it holds in any. –  MBN May 25 '13 at 11:13

2 Answers 2

In the context of general relativity it is often stated that one of the main purposes of tensors is that of making equations frame-independent. Question: why is this true?

Actually this isn't quite true. General relativity doesn't have frames of reference (except locally, which is trivially true because GR is the same as SR locally). A better way of saying this would be:

The purpose of tensors is to make equations coordinate-independent.

The idea is that when we assign coordinates to something, that's just a name. The laws of nature should be expressible in a manner such that the names don't matter.

I'm looking for a mathematical argument/proof about this fact.

A tensor is defined as something that transforms in a certain way under a change of coordinates. Since the transformation of tensors is well-defined, it follows that a tensorial equation retains the same form under a change of coordinates.

share|improve this answer
2  
Indeed. What replaces a global coordinate system in GR is an atlas, which is a patchwork of coordinate systems with are glued to each other via homeomorphic biyections in a subset of their overlap regions –  lurscher Sep 29 at 2:56
1  
@lurscher: Right, I think we're in agreement. I was trying to be nontechnical in my answer, but basically everywhere that I say "coordinates," technically it should be "atlas." –  Ben Crowell Sep 29 at 2:58

What we want of a law of nature is that is has the same form for every equivalent observer.

Therefore, these laws should be construct with geometrical objects which transform into themselves up to multiplicative factors. This is also known as an homogeneous transformation under certain group (typically Lorentz or diffeomorphism).

The geometrical object which satisfy this homogeneous transformation rule are tensors (there are also spinors). Thus physical theories are described (so far) successfully by these objects (or fields).

share|improve this answer
    
Tensorial relationships are form-invariant under a change of coordinates. In SR, a choice of coordinates can be identified with a choice of observer, but that's not the case in SR. –  Ben Crowell Sep 29 at 0:48

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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