# TENSOR-SPEAK

To Burinskii:  Do  you agree energy density is  1/2 E_a E^a    ??
STEVE ALBERS: My fields are stated as contravariant, so one squares then multiplies by g_11.  The opposite is true for DKS fields !!!! YAH, verstehe?
AWRIIIIIIIIGHT.   Alexander gives me the respect of an answer:
“No, ~  F_\mu\nu F^\\mu \nu  ”      I shall speak to this, soon.  . . .
I need help with your notation. I write Minkowski field tensor, say,
as F_ab.  Regular derivatives are  | ,   and covariant ones are ||  .

## 6 thoughts on “TENSOR-SPEAK”

1. Does opposite then mean take the square root and divide by g_11? Or something else for DKS?

Like

2. energy density of a covarient field, like the DKS, is the square of the radial field, divided by g_11. Fior the ALBERS FIELDS, multiply instead, they are contravariant !!! In tensor-speak, either way you must create E^a E_a… This implies the Einsteir summation convention.[[Sorry, just corrected my misteak]] Only last week I read Einstein’s excited words at arriving at this convention, not having to write summations all over the place ∑∑∑

Like

3. Does the same treatment apply for g_22?

Multiplying by these terms for the Albers field yields then a much more obvious Tinker Bell point compared with before.

Like

• WOW, see it all counts, seeeeeeriously. yes we have to treat each term separately, then add. For my contravariant fields, take a component, square it, and multiply by g_aa, whether a=1 or a=2.

Like

4. I could write g^aa, like g^rr, as the inverse of its covariant form, eh? For now I will stick to one form to have mercy on the PROGRAMMER.

Like