What is a tensor quantity , how is it different from vector quantity or scalar quantity and why is pressure a tensor. It would be very helpful if you could give me an intuitive idea of tensor quantities.
23324
I have a pretty good knowledge of physics, but couldn't deeply understand what a  is and why it is so fundamental.
98190
specify two vector and two scalar (differential) equations. That implies 8 components in the equations. But between vector fields $\vec{E}=(E_x,E_y,E_z)$ and $\vec{B}=(B_x,B_y,B_z)$, there are only 6 unknowns. So we have 8 equations for 6 unknowns. Why isn't this a problem?  As far as I know, the answer is basically because the equations aren't actually independent but I've never found a clear explanation. Perhaps the right direction is in  on arXiv.  Apologies if this is a repost. I found some discussions on PhysicsForums but no similar question here.
80446
We can define cross products mathematically like if we take two vectors, we can find another vector with certain properties but why do we use it in physics, if we consider a hypothetical physical quantity like force which is equal to cross product of certain vectors?     For example, the force exerted on a charge in motion in an uniform magnetic field.   Why is it so? Why does that force have to be a cross product of two vectors?  Is it possible to come up with them when what we do is just observe the nature?
83728
I'm trying to learn about the stress tensor (in 3D)    The tensors are said to have directions (the first subindex $i$ in $\sigma_{ij}$) and specify the surface upon which they act (the second subindex $j$ in $\sigma_{ij}$).  What confuses me is why is it defined only to act on three surfaces, even when the cube has six surfaces?
5422
What is the reason for the observation that across the board fields in physics are generally governed by second order (partial) differential equations?    If someone on the street would flat out ask me that question, then I'd probably mumble something about physicists wanting to be able to use the Lagrangian approach. And to allow a positive rotation and translation invariant energy term, which allows for local propagation, you need something like $-\phi\Delta\phi$.  I assume the answer goes in this direction, but I can't really justify why more complex terms in the Lagrangian are not allowed or why higher orders are a physical problem. Even if these require more initial data, I don't see the a priori problem.  Furthermore you could come up with quantities in the spirit of $F\wedge F$ and $F \wedge *F$ and okay yes... maybe any made up scalar just doesn't describe physics or misses valuable symmetries. On there other hand in the whole renormalization business, they seem to be allowed to use lots and lots of terms in their Lagrangians. And if I understand correctly, supersymmetry theory is basically a method of introducing new Lagrangian densities too.   Do we know the limit for making up these objects? What is the fundamental justification for order two?
27511
What is the correspondence between the conserved canonical energy-momentum tensor, which is $$ T^{\mu\nu}_{can} := \sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\delta\mathcal{L}_{Matter}}{\delta(\partial_\mu f_i)}\partial^\nu f_i - \eta^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{L}$$ (the four conserved Noether currents corresponding to four possible spacetime translations)  where $\{f_i\}_{i=1}^N$ are the $N$ matter fields in the theory, and we assume $f_i\mapsto\alpha^\nu\partial_\nu f_i$ for translations,  and stress-energy tensor from the Einstein-Hilbert action, which is: $$ T_{\mu\nu}\equiv-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta\mathcal{L}_{Matter}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}} $$   In particular, how do you get that the two are equal (are they?) for Minkowski space, for which there is no variation in the metric?
74354
I understand that a vector has direction and magnitude whereas a point doesn't.  However, in the course notes that I am using, it is stated that a point is the same as a vector.  Also, can you do cross product and dot product using two points instead of two vectors? I don't think so, but my roommate insists yes, and I'm kind of confused now.
38288
In  it's said that time is a scalar quantity. But its hard to understand that how? As stated that we consider only the magnitude of time then its a scalar. But on basis of time we define yesterday, today and tomorrow then what it will be?
85915
Most of us have heard of Einstein's amazing equations which describe the universe around us, yet only some of us understand what the equations are actually saying.      What are these equations actually saying, and is there a simple (relatively) way to derive them?   Here they are, from :  $$R_{\mu\nu}-\dfrac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R+g_{\mu\nu}\Lambda=\dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}$$  I have a vague notion of what a tensor is (it describes things as an array and higher orders define more complex transformations), but I don't understand what all of these tensors are doing. And why is there a $c^{4}$  in the equation!?
70705
Physics texts like to define vector as something that transform like a vector and tensor as something that transform like a tensor, which is different from the definition in math books. I am having difficulty understanding this kind of definition. To me, it goes like this:   First we have a collection of bases or coordinate systems (do these represent reference frames?) and the transformations between them. A vector/tensor is an assignment of an array of numbers to each basis, and these arrays are related to each other by coordinate transformations.   I am wondering how coordinate systems and transformations are specified.    Do we need all possible coordinate systems and transformations to define a vector space or just a few of them? How to define the concept of basis and coordinate transformation without completing the very notion of vector?
60355
"We have focused our discussion on one-dimensional motion. It is natural to assume that for three-dimensional motion, force, like acceleration, behaves like a vector."- (Introduction to Mechanics) Kleppner and Kolenkow  We learn it very early in the course of our study that Force is vector; But, if I were the physicist defining the the Newton's second law (experimentally) and analysing the result F=ma, how would I determine whether Force is vector or scalar(especially in 3-D).   Actually, when I read the aforementioned sentences from the book, I wanted to  know why do the authors expect it to be natural for us to think that in 3-D "Force" behaves like a vector. I know a(acceleration ) is vector and mass a scalar and scalar times vector gives a new vector but is there another explanation for this?
81134
My teacher told me that Vectors are quantities that behave like Displacements. Seen this way, the triangle law of vector addition simply means that to reach point C from point A, going from A to B &amp; then to C is equivalent to going from A to C directly.  But what is the meaning of a product of vectors? I cannot imagine how a product of displacements would look like in reality. Also, how do we know whether we need the scalar (dot) product or a vector (cross) product?
69775
I'm interested in learning physics. I do realize that the subject is large and that it would be easier if I had a specific area of interest. However, I do not. I suppose I want to learn about the fundamentals of it all; the axioms that combine all physics fields. Or, in other words, a high school physics class.   Specifically, a book or series of videos would be helpful. I looked over MIT and unfortunately the material wasn't for me. I don't mean to be "picky" so I am not completely ruling out any resource just yet.   Thanks in advance.
46159
I am a graduate student in mathematics who would like to learn some classical mechanics. However, there is one caveat: I am not interested in the standard coordinate approach. I can't help but think of the fields that arise in physics as sections of vector bundles (or maybe principal bundles) and would love an approach to classical mechanics or what have you that took advantage of this.  Now for the questions:   Is there a text book you would recommend that phrases the constructions in classical mechanics via bundles without an appeal to transition functions?   What are the drawbacks to this approach other than the fact that it makes computations less doable? (if it does that)   Are there benefits to thinking about things this way, ie would it be of benefit to someone attempting to learn this material to do it this way?
47518
What is the meaning of ? I'm little confused about the word as there are some terms like moment of momentum, moment of mass, moment of force, etc. I want to know what exactly is meant by the word "moment".
79439
Suppose $A^{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_n}_{\nu_{n+1}\cdots \nu_m}$ is a tensor. That means it transforms a tensor. How do I show that it transforms as a tensor? How do I see that $\cos (A^{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_n}_{\nu_{n+1}\cdots \nu_m})$ or some other non-tensor does not transform like a tensor?
19588
I was wondering if anyone could give me the intuition behind the cross product of two vectors $\textbf{a}$ and $\textbf{b}$. Why does their cross product $\textbf{n} = \textbf{a} \times \textbf{b}$  give me a vector which is perpendicular to a plane?  I know I can just check this by using dot product but I'm not totally satisfied with "it just works" answer =)  Thank you for any help! =)