Minkowski spacetime interval's Lorentz invariance

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Lorentz invariance of the Minkowski spacetime interval, specifically how the sign reversal between space and time components ensures that the interval remains invariant across different inertial frames. The Minkowskian interval is defined as ds² = c²t² - dx² - dy² - dz², contrasting with the Euclidean definition which fails to maintain invariance. The derivation involves using Lorentz transformation equations, demonstrating that the spacetime interval retains its form under transformation, thereby confirming its Lorentz invariance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformation equations
  • Familiarity with Minkowski spacetime concepts
  • Knowledge of spacetime intervals and their definitions
  • Basic principles of special relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Lorentz transformation equations in detail
  • Explore the implications of Minkowski spacetime in theoretical physics
  • Learn about the geometric interpretation of spacetime intervals
  • Investigate the differences between Minkowskian and Euclidean geometries
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of spacetime and Lorentz transformations.

cefarix
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Maybe this is really easy, but...
Can someone show me how the sign reversal between the space and time components of Minkowski spacetime make its intervals Lorentz invariant (mathematical derivation) ? Thanks... :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming that you are familiar with the Lorentz transformation equations themselves (object moving along x):
[tex]x'=\gamma(x-vt)[/tex]
[tex]t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/tex]
[tex]y'=y[/tex]
[tex]z'=z[/tex]
Lorentz invariance requires a space-time interval between two events to have the same magnitude from any frame so:
[tex]ds'^2=ds^2[/tex].
If [itex]ds^2[/itex] would have been defined Euclidean as:
[tex]ds^2=c^2t^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/tex],
then this equation should have hold:
[tex]c^2t^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=c^2t'^2+dx'^2+dy'^2+dz'^2[/tex]
If you solve the primed coordinates in this equation using the Lorentz transformation equations you end up with something that is clearly nonsense (check for yourself).
If on the other hand we define [itex]ds^2[/itex] Minkowskian:
[tex]ds^2=c^2t^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2[/tex],
then solving the primed coordinates leads to a correct result.

Another way to arrive at the [itex]+---[/itex] is using a lightpulse that spreads with speed [itex]c[/itex] from the origin in all directions. A sphere is formed by this lightspreading according to:
[tex]c^2t^2=x^2+y^2+z^2[/tex],
so
[tex]c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=0[/tex].
This is also true from a moving frame:
[tex]c^2t'^2-x'^2-y'^2-z'^2=0[/tex],
so
[tex]c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=c^2t'^2-x'^2-y'^2-z'^2[/tex].
The rest of the story is the same but this last method was actually used to derive the Lorentz transformation equations in the first place.
 
I would do it this way. Take two events (t1,x1,y1,z1) and (t2,x2,y2,z2)

Using the lorentz transformations you can show that:
[tex]\Delta t' = \gamma (\Delta t - v\Delta x/c^2)[/tex]
[tex]\Delta x' = \gamma (\Delta x - v\Delta t)[/tex]
[tex]\Delta y' = \Delta y[/tex]
[tex]\Delta z' = \Delta z[/tex]

To get the above just use the lorentz transformations to calculate t1',x1'...t2',x2'... and then [tex]x2-x1 = \Delta x[/tex] and [tex]x2'-x1' = \Delta x'[/tex] etc...

Now just calculate out:
[tex]c^2*(\Delta t')^2 -(\Delta x')^2-(\Delta y')^2-(\Delta z')^2[/tex] by substituting the above formulas. You'll see that it comes out to:

[tex]c^2*(\Delta t)^2 -(\Delta x)^2-(\Delta y)^2-(\Delta z)^2[/tex]

Showing that the euclidean formula (with + instead of -) is not invariant is simple. Just take two events let's say (0,0,0,0) and (t1,0,0,0)

Now [tex]c^2*(\Delta t)^2 +(\Delta x)^2+(\Delta y)^2+(\Delta z)^2[/tex]

comes out to [tex]c^2*t1^2[/tex]

for S' it comes out to [tex](c^2+v^2) (\gamma)^2*t1^2[/tex]

The two are not equal for nonzero v and t1.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
8K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
6K