Talk:Feynman slash notation

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Andremanoel in topic Metric convention

Metric convention

edit

For a g=(1,-1,-1,-1) metric, shouldn't the expression

   

actually be:

   

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.141.96 (talkcontribs)

No, because both   &   are independent of the metric convention. Or put it another way, because the metric does not explicitly appear in the slash definition.
Contrast with the definitions:
 
and
 
where the   sign is metric convention dependent, + for g(+---) and - for g(-+++).
I guess the article should say this.
--Michael C. Price talk 11:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the response above, but when lowering indexes you have to take the metric in account. Therefore, is wrong to say that  , because the dot product between   and   is the standard inner product of the orthonormal Euclidean space.
In this way, I've corrected the signs in the   matrix. You can check on Griffiths, for instance, that the correct form is this one.
--André Manoel talk 15:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply