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 || .

Advertisements

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

LikeLike

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 ∑∑∑

LikeLike

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.

LikeLike

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.

LikeLike

Thus the outer views are now updated here:

http://stevealbers.net/physics/efield/efield.html

LikeLike

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.

LikeLike