Register to reply

Inhomogeneous (poincare) lorentz transormation

Share this thread:
spacelike
#1
Dec29-11, 10:26 AM
P: 37
I'm reading a physics book and in the section on relativity they are using the Einstein summation convention, with 4vectors and matrices.

They say that the transformations take the form:
[tex]x^{\prime\mu}=x^{\nu}\Lambda^{\mu}_{\nu}+C^{\mu}[/tex]
where it is required that [itex]\Lambda^{\mu}_{\nu}[/itex] satisfy the following relation:
[tex]\eta_{\mu\nu}\Lambda^{\mu}_{\alpha}\Lambda^{\nu}_{\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\b eta}[/tex]
(note: I found the same thing on wikipedia, so you can see it in context if you like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz...etime_interval it appears a tiny bit down from the section that the link takes you to.)

My problem is that this seems impossible to satisfy by my current understanding, but I know I must be wrong, I just cannot see how.

So we are summing over [itex]\mu[/itex] and [itex]\nu[/itex] in the above relation right? and we do this for all [itex]\alpha[/itex] and [itex]\beta[/itex] in order to satisfy all the components of the matrices.
My problem is what happens when we get to the following situation?:
[tex]\mu=0, \nu=1, \alpha=0, \beta=0[/tex]
But, [itex]\eta_{01}=0[/itex], and [itex]\eta_{00}=-1[/itex]. So there is no possible values of the [itex]\Lambda[/itex]'s that will satisfy this because we now have 0=-1, which is a contradiction.

Where did I go wrong with my thinking? Thanks.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Scientists develop 'electronic nose' for rapid detection of C. diff infection
Why plants in the office make us more productive
Tesla Motors dealing as states play factory poker
George Jones
#2
Dec29-11, 10:37 AM
Mentor
George Jones's Avatar
P: 6,246
In an inertial coordinate system,
[tex]\eta_{\alpha\beta} = \eta_{\mu\nu}\Lambda^{\mu}_{\alpha}\Lambda^{\nu}_{ \beta} = -\Lambda^{0}_{\alpha}\Lambda^{0}_{ \beta} + \Lambda^{1}_{\alpha}\Lambda^{1}_{ \beta} + \Lambda^{2}_{\alpha}\Lambda^{2}_{ \beta} + \Lambda^{3}_{\alpha}\Lambda^{3}_{ \beta}[/tex]
Matterwave
#3
Dec29-11, 12:07 PM
Sci Advisor
Matterwave's Avatar
P: 2,847
You're not summing, you've just assumed 4 values for the 4 variables. Remember you have to sum over mu and nu.

spacelike
#4
Dec29-11, 01:36 PM
P: 37
Inhomogeneous (poincare) lorentz transormation

Right! I knew it would have to have been something stupidly simple >.<

thanks guys.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Lorentz and Poincare Groups Special & General Relativity 23
Are Lorentz and Poincare insufficiently credited for special relativity? Special & General Relativity 2
Lorentz or Poincare invariant? Special & General Relativity 1
Poincaré's 1900 paper on Lorentz's theory Special & General Relativity 13
Lorentz and Poincare groups Special & General Relativity 1