Lorentz Transforms: Components, Partial Derivatives - Zwiebach 36

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lorentz
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Lorentz transformations and their application to vector components and partial derivatives, specifically under a boost along the x^1 axis, as presented in Zwiebach's text. Participants are examining the transformations of vector components and the implications for partial derivatives in the context of special relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are discussing the correctness of Lorentz transformation equations for vector components and exploring the transformation of partial derivatives. There is a focus on sign conventions and the application of the multivariable chain rule.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing examination of the transformations, with some participants questioning the accuracy of initial answers and suggesting corrections. Guidance has been offered regarding the use of the multivariable chain rule to express partial derivatives in terms of primed coordinates. Multiple interpretations of the transformations are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the complexities of transforming both vector components and partial derivatives, with attention to the implications of index placement and the definitions of momentum in the context of special relativity. There is mention of differing conventions in mathematical treatment within physics.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
Zwiebach page 36

a)Give the Lorentz transformations for the components a_mu of a vector under a boost along the x^1 axis.

[tex]a'_0 = -a_0 \gamma + a_1 \gamma \beta[/tex]
[tex]a'_1^ = -a_0 \gamma \beta + a_1 \gamma[/tex]
and 2 and 3 are the same.

b) Show that the objects

[tex]\partial/\partial x^\mu[/tex] transform under a boost along the x^1 axis in the same way as the [tex]a_\mu[/tex] in (a) do

Note the upper and lower indices.

Firstly is my answer to (a) good? Second, I am not sure how to transform a partial derivative in (b).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
Firstly is my answer to (a) good?

I get a different result. Careful with th signs.

Second, I am not sure how to transform a partial derivative in (b).

Use the multivariable chain rule.
 
George Jones said:
I get a different result. Careful with th signs.

Is this better for part (a)
[tex]a'_0 = a_0 \gamma + a_1 \gamma \beta[/tex]
[tex]a'_1 = a_0 \gamma \beta + a_1 \gamma[/tex]

?
 
ehrenfest said:
Is this better for part (a)
[tex]a'_0 = a_0 \gamma + a_1 \gamma \beta[/tex]
[tex]a'_1 = a_0 \gamma \beta + a_1 \gamma[/tex]?

Yes, this is what I get.
 
George Jones said:
Use the multivariable chain rule.

I get, for the example of mu = 0:

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x'^0} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x'^0} \frac{\partial x' ^ 0}{\partial x^0} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x'^0} \frac{\partial x' ^ 0}{\partial x^1}[/tex]

How do I get partials with respect to non-primed coordinates with the multivariable chain rule?
 
ehrenfest said:
How do I get partials with respect to non-primed coordinates with the multivariable chain rule?

Do you know a formula that expresses [itex]x'^0[/itex] in terms of [itex]x^0[/itex] and [itex]x^1?[/itex] If you do, then just differentiate.
 
Like this:

[tex]\frac{\partial x'^0}{\partial x^0} = \gamma[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial x'^0}{\partial x^1} = -\gamma \beta[/tex]

In order to show that the objects

[tex]\partial/\partial x^\mu[/tex]

transform as suggested, I need to express the partial operators with respect to the primed coordinates in terms of the partial operators with respect to the nonprimed coordinates, right?

What I showed above does not even have an operator really.
 
ehrenfest said:
[tex]\frac{\partial x'^0}{\partial x^0} = \gamma[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial x'^0}{\partial x^1} = -\gamma \beta[/tex]

Substitute these into a corrected version of the equation that you gave in post #5. I just noticed that this equation is not right.
 
I honestly do not see why my multivariable chain rule equation is wrong.
 
  • #10
ehrenfest said:
I honestly do not see why my multivariable chain rule equation is wrong.

In post #5, you wrote

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x'^0} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x'^0} \frac{\partial x' ^ 0}{\partial x^0} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x'^0} \frac{\partial x' ^ 0}{\partial x^1}[/tex]

"Cancellation" (I don't really mean cancellation) should turn each term on the right into the term on the left. After "cancellation' your expression is

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x'^0} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x^0} + \frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}.[/tex]

Notice that each term on the right looks different than the term on the left.

Take a close look at the chain rule in a text.
 
  • #11
I see. I am good with part (b). Now, for part (c), he means the expressions

p = -i h-bar del

and E = i h-bar d/dt

right?

So the p_mu is the momentum four-vector? How can you have a momentum four-vector when one component of that vector is basically time?
 
  • #12
ehrenfest said:
So the p_mu is the momentum four-vector?

With lower indices. Forget about quantum theory for a bit. In an inertial frame, what is p_0?
 
  • #13
George Jones said:
With lower indices. Forget about quantum theory for a bit. In an inertial frame, what is p_0?

[tex]p_0 = -E/c[/tex]

So I need to show that this is also equal to [tex]\hbar/i \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}[/tex]? Should I use those equation in my previous post? Plugging in for E does not seem to work.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
ehrenfest said:
[tex]p_0 = -E/c[/tex]

So I need to show that this is also equal to

[tex]\hbar/i \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}[/tex]?

You need to show that it is equal to

[tex]\hbar/i \frac{\partial}{\partial x^0}[/tex]

Should I use those equation in my previous post?

Yes.
 
  • #15
Got it. Done with 2.3!
 
  • #16
ehrenfest said:
Got it. Done with 2.3!

Great!

Note that Zwiebach uses "physicist's math", i.e., he treats each [itex]\partial / \partial x^\mu[/itex] as a component of a covector. In modern (not so modern now) differential geometry, each [itex]\partial / \partial x^\mu[/itex] is a tangent vector, not a component.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K