Gravitation by Charles W. Misner, Kip Throne and John Wheeler page 93 Box 4.1 point 5 b. Applications: a.

"In four dimensions, all 0 forms, 1- forms, 3-forms, and 4-forms are simple. A 2-form $F$ is generally a sum of two simple forms, e.g., $F=-edt\wedge dx+hdy\wedge dz$; it is simple if and only if $F\wedge F=0$" where simple form is defined to be the "one that can be written as a wedge product of $p$ 1-forms: $\sigma_p=\alpha \wedge...(p~factors)\wedge \gamma$."


  1. Does the conclusion here $F\wedge F=0$ specifically applied to $F=-edt\wedge dx+hdy\wedge dz$? or does it apply to any 2 form in 4 dimension? or does it apply to any 2 form in any dimesion?

  2. The statement "A form $F$ is simple if and only if $F\wedge F=0$": I have a hard time to prove if $F\wedge F=0$ then $F$ is simple for general cases. Could you demonstrate a general proof, please?


Let $F\in \Omega^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ be an arbitrary $p$-form in $d$ dimensions, where $1\leq p\leq d$.

  1. Clearly any form $F$ squares to zero: $F\wedge F=0$ if $p$ is odd or if $2p>d$.

  2. Clearly any simple/decomposable $F$ squares to zero: $F\wedge F=0$.

  3. Proposition 1: The opposite implication $$\forall F\in \Omega^p(\mathbb{R}^d):~~F\wedge F=0~\Rightarrow~ F\text{ decomposable}\tag{1}$$ holds if and only if $p=2$ and $d\geq 4$.

  4. Tomas Brauner's answer shows the "if" part of Proposition 1 by using the fact that any 2-form/antisymmetrix matrix can be brought on 2-block diagonal form.

  5. The "only if" part of Proposition 1 can be seen by finding suitable counterexamples. E.g. in the case $p=4$ and $d\geq 8$, one may check that $$ F~=~(\mathrm{d}x^1 \wedge \mathrm{d}x^2+ \mathrm{d}x^3 \wedge \mathrm{d}x^4)\wedge \mathrm{d}x^5 \wedge \mathrm{d}x^6 \tag{2}$$ squares to zero but is not$^{\dagger}$ decomposable.


$^{\dagger}$ Sketched indirect proof of non-decomposability of (2): Assume that the 4-form (2) $$F~=~A_1\wedge A_2 \wedge A_3 \wedge A_4\tag{3}$$ is decomposable with four 1-forms $$A_k~=~\sum_{j=1}^d a_{kj} \mathrm{d}x^j, \qquad k~\in~\{1,2,3,4\}.\tag{4}$$ Next explore that various contractions yield $$\forall j\geq 7:~~ i_j F~=~0,\tag{5}$$ and $$i_1i_3F~=~0,\quad i_1i_4F~=~0,\quad i_2i_3F~=~0, \quad i_2i_4F~=~0,\tag{6} $$ to derive that $$\forall k\in\{1,2,3,4\}~\forall j\geq 7:~~ a_{kj}~=~0,\tag{7}$$ and that $\forall k,\ell\in\{1,2,3,4\}:$ $$ a_{k1}a_{\ell 3}~=~a_{k3}a_{\ell 1}~\wedge~ a_{k1}a_{\ell 4}~=~a_{k4}a_{\ell 1}~\wedge~ a_{k2}a_{\ell 3}~=~a_{k3}a_{\ell 2}~\wedge~ a_{k2}a_{\ell 4}~=~a_{k4}a_{\ell 2}, \tag{8} $$ and therefore $$\forall k,\ell\in\{1,2,3,4\}:~~ (a_{k 1}, a_{k 2}, a_{k 3}, a_{k 4}) ~~\parallel~~(a_{\ell 1}, a_{\ell 2}, a_{\ell 3}, a_{\ell 4}).\tag{9} $$

Deduce that the four 1-forms (4) are spanned by $\mathrm{d}x^5$, $\mathrm{d}x^6$ and only one more 1-form, and hence the four 1-forms (4) are not linearly independent. Contradiction. $\Box$


Let me add an argument that is much less general than the answer by Mike Stone, but somewhat more elementary. It is valid for 2-forms regardless of the dimension of the base space the forms act on.

So, a general 2-form $F$ can be written in an arbitrarily chosen basis of 1-forms $e^i$ as $F=\frac12f_{ij}e^i\wedge e^j$. The matrix of coefficients $f_{ij}$ is antisymmetric, and thus can be made block-diagonal by a suitable change of basis. In other words, the form $F$ can always be expanded as $$ F=f_{12}e^1\wedge e^2+f_{34}e^3\wedge e^4+\dotsb. $$ It follows immediately that $F\wedge F=0$ if and only if the above expansion contains at most one term (that is, exactly one term as long as the form $F$ is nonzero). This answers your questions.


The general condition for an $n$-form with components $T^{\mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots \mu_n}$ to be writable as a single wedge product $$ T=U_1\wedge U_2,\wedge\ldots \wedge U_n $$ is $$ T^{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{n-1}[ \nu_1}T^{\nu_2\nu_3\ldots \nu_{n+1}]}=0 $$ for all possible choices of the indices. where $[\ldots]$ means antisymmetrize. Thus a three index antisymmetric tensor is decomposable if $$ T^{i_1i_2j_1}T^{j_2j_3j_4}-T^{i_1i_2 j_2}T^{j_1j_3j_4}+T^{i_1i_2j_3}T^{j_1j_2j_4}-T^{i_1i_2 j_4}T^{j_1j_2j_3}=0 $$ These are the Plücker conditions. It is fairly easy to show that they are necessary, but I do not know an easy way to show that they are sufficient.


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.